Summing up the ratings

We assessed each discipline on five dimensions of support: the extent to which the discipline has been codified, the institutions that exist to support practitioners, the extent of training available, whether there are active and resilient communities of practice, and whether the discipline can draw on deep foundations of academic research.

Ratings were given on a five point scale:

Missing. Where a discipline is visibly mainly in the work itself, but lacks formal support – there may be little or no codification, training, or peer community.
Emerging. Where a discipline has started to be named, and might have early institutional homes. There might be informal meetups and sporadic opportunities for training, but these are poorly funded, or piecemeal.
Developing. For these disciplines, support has begun to mature; there might have been initial efforts at codification, multiple supporting institutions, and several routes to train, but support is fragile and has notable gaps.
Established. The discipline has a clear professional identity and is backed by multiple anchor institutions, likely with recognised training routes, and multiple active practitioner communities.
Fully mature. The full set of supporting architecture is in place: major institutions, recognised qualifications, journals, and a deep and resilient practitioner community, with the standing that tends to be associated with long-standing professions.

It is important to note that a low score in one dimension is not necessarily a problem to be fixed; some disciplines, for example, choose not to develop formal training, or to codify their practice, judging that the work is better served by flexible and responsive practitioners. Not every discipline, therefore, will want to achieve the highest possible score across each dimension. However, a low score in most or every dimension may indicate that a discipline struggles to be recognised and respected, and may therefore also struggle to attract funding.

The table below synthesises the ratings for each discipline. Each cell rates the strength of support for that discipline on that dimension, on the same five-point scale.

Sort by

Key

Scale: 1 Missing; 2 Emerging; 3 Developing; 4 Established; 5 Fully mature

Columns
Cod: Codification (frameworks, occupational standards and role profiles)
Ins: Institutions (the institutions that hold and develop the work)
Tra: Training (learning, training and continuing development)
Com: Communities (communities of practice and peer networks)
Aca: Academia (the work's academic underpinnings)

Table 1 Rating support for the fifteen disciplines
Discipline	Codification: frameworks, occupational standards and role profiles	Institutions: the institutions that hold and develop the work	Training: learning, training and continuing development	Communities: communities of practice and peer networks	Academia: the work's academic underpinnings	Overall
01 Community and peer connectors01 Peer connectors	3	3	3	3	3	3.0
A · Connecting and brokering Community and peer connectors Codificationframeworks, occupational standards and role profiles3 Developing Institutionsthe institutions that hold and develop the work3 Developing Traininglearning, training and continuing development3 Developing Communitiescommunities of practice and peer networks3 Developing Academiathe work's academic underpinnings3 Developing Overall 3.0 · mean of the five; the field mean is 3.0 Read the entry: Community and peer connectors
02 Local area and patch-based coordinators02 Area coordinators	4	3	3	4	3	3.4
A · Connecting and brokering Local area and patch-based coordinators Codificationframeworks, occupational standards and role profiles4 Established Institutionsthe institutions that hold and develop the work3 Developing Traininglearning, training and continuing development3 Developing Communitiescommunities of practice and peer networks4 Established Academiathe work's academic underpinnings3 Developing Overall 3.4 · mean of the five; the field mean is 3.0 Read the entry: Local area and patch-based coordinators
03 Civic space-makers and space-holders03 Space-holders	2	4	2	4	3	3.0
A · Connecting and brokering Civic space-makers and space-holders Codificationframeworks, occupational standards and role profiles2 Emerging Institutionsthe institutions that hold and develop the work4 Established Traininglearning, training and continuing development2 Emerging Communitiescommunities of practice and peer networks4 Established Academiathe work's academic underpinnings3 Developing Overall 3.0 · mean of the five; the field mean is 3.0 Support is thin by choice. The work of holding a space open ... is especially hard to codify, and several practitioners were explicit that codification could hinder this work. Read the entry: Civic space-makers and space-holders
04 Community stewards04 Community stewards	1	1	1	1	2	1.2
B · Mediating Community stewards Codificationframeworks, occupational standards and role profiles1 Missing Institutionsthe institutions that hold and develop the work1 Missing Traininglearning, training and continuing development1 Missing Communitiescommunities of practice and peer networks1 Missing Academiathe work's academic underpinnings2 Emerging Overall 1.2 · mean of the five; the field mean is 3.0 Support is thin because it has been starved. Support for some disciplines is thin because they have been starved ... Community stewards are an example. Read the entry: Community stewards
05 Peace-builders and bridge-builders05 Bridge-builders	3	4	4	3	4	3.6
B · Mediating Peace-builders and bridge-builders Codificationframeworks, occupational standards and role profiles3 Developing Institutionsthe institutions that hold and develop the work4 Established Traininglearning, training and continuing development4 Established Communitiescommunities of practice and peer networks3 Developing Academiathe work's academic underpinnings4 Established Overall 3.6 · mean of the five; the field mean is 3.0 Read the entry: Peace-builders and bridge-builders
06 Community organisers06 Community organisers	4	4	4	4	4	4.0
C · Empowering Community organisers Codificationframeworks, occupational standards and role profiles4 Established Institutionsthe institutions that hold and develop the work4 Established Traininglearning, training and continuing development4 Established Communitiescommunities of practice and peer networks4 Established Academiathe work's academic underpinnings4 Established Overall 4.0 · mean of the five; the field mean is 3.0 Read the entry: Community organisers
07 Community power-builders and collective advocates07 Power-builders and advocates	3	3	2	3	3	2.8
C · Empowering Community power-builders and collective advocates Codificationframeworks, occupational standards and role profiles3 Developing Institutionsthe institutions that hold and develop the work3 Developing Traininglearning, training and continuing development2 Emerging Communitiescommunities of practice and peer networks3 Developing Academiathe work's academic underpinnings3 Developing Overall 2.8 · mean of the five; the field mean is 3.0 Read the entry: Community power-builders and collective advocates
08 Lived-experience and peer researchers08 Peer researchers	3	3	2	2	3	2.6
D · Seeing and reflecting Lived-experience and peer researchers Codificationframeworks, occupational standards and role profiles3 Developing Institutionsthe institutions that hold and develop the work3 Developing Traininglearning, training and continuing development2 Emerging Communitiescommunities of practice and peer networks2 Emerging Academiathe work's academic underpinnings3 Developing Overall 2.6 · mean of the five; the field mean is 3.0 Read the entry: Lived-experience and peer researchers
09 Cultural, creative and heritage practitioners09 Cultural practitioners	3	4	4	4	4	3.8
D · Seeing and reflecting Cultural, creative and heritage practitioners Codificationframeworks, occupational standards and role profiles3 Developing Institutionsthe institutions that hold and develop the work4 Established Traininglearning, training and continuing development4 Established Communitiescommunities of practice and peer networks4 Established Academiathe work's academic underpinnings4 Established Overall 3.8 · mean of the five; the field mean is 3.0 Read the entry: Cultural, creative and heritage practitioners
10 Civic institution-builders and systemic imaginers10 Institution-builders	2	4	2	4	3	3.0
E · Reforming and building Civic institution-builders and systemic imaginers Codificationframeworks, occupational standards and role profiles2 Emerging Institutionsthe institutions that hold and develop the work4 Established Traininglearning, training and continuing development2 Emerging Communitiescommunities of practice and peer networks4 Established Academiathe work's academic underpinnings3 Developing Overall 3.0 · mean of the five; the field mean is 3.0 Support is thin by choice. much of their value lies in working against the grain, so codifying or professionalising this work risks undermining its value Read the entry: Civic institution-builders and systemic imaginers
11 Community and social entrepreneurs11 Social entrepreneurs	4	4	4	4	4	4.0
E · Reforming and building Community and social entrepreneurs Codificationframeworks, occupational standards and role profiles4 Established Institutionsthe institutions that hold and develop the work4 Established Traininglearning, training and continuing development4 Established Communitiescommunities of practice and peer networks4 Established Academiathe work's academic underpinnings4 Established Overall 4.0 · mean of the five; the field mean is 3.0 Read the entry: Community and social entrepreneurs
12 Institutional wranglers and system connectors12 Institutional wranglers	1	1	1	3	2	1.6
F · Creating the conditions Institutional wranglers and system connectors Codificationframeworks, occupational standards and role profiles1 Missing Institutionsthe institutions that hold and develop the work1 Missing Traininglearning, training and continuing development1 Missing Communitiescommunities of practice and peer networks3 Developing Academiathe work's academic underpinnings2 Emerging Overall 1.6 · mean of the five; the field mean is 3.0 Read the entry: Institutional wranglers and system connectors
13 Relational practitioners in public services13 Relational practitioners	3	3	3	4	3	3.2
F · Creating the conditions Relational practitioners in public services Codificationframeworks, occupational standards and role profiles3 Developing Institutionsthe institutions that hold and develop the work3 Developing Traininglearning, training and continuing development3 Developing Communitiescommunities of practice and peer networks4 Established Academiathe work's academic underpinnings3 Developing Overall 3.2 · mean of the five; the field mean is 3.0 Support is thin because the discipline is young. relational practice in public service is a little further along; it is still relatively early, but is visibly building architecture at speed Read the entry: Relational practitioners in public services
14 Civic and place leaders14 Civic and place leaders	2	3	3	3	3	2.8
F · Creating the conditions Civic and place leaders Codificationframeworks, occupational standards and role profiles2 Emerging Institutionsthe institutions that hold and develop the work3 Developing Traininglearning, training and continuing development3 Developing Communitiescommunities of practice and peer networks3 Developing Academiathe work's academic underpinnings3 Developing Overall 2.8 · mean of the five; the field mean is 3.0 Read the entry: Civic and place leaders
15 Infrastructure rewirers15 Infrastructure rewirers	2	3	2	4	2	2.6
F · Creating the conditions Infrastructure rewirers Codificationframeworks, occupational standards and role profiles2 Emerging Institutionsthe institutions that hold and develop the work3 Developing Traininglearning, training and continuing development2 Emerging Communitiescommunities of practice and peer networks4 Established Academiathe work's academic underpinnings2 Emerging Overall 2.6 · mean of the five; the field mean is 3.0 Support is thin because the discipline is young. Some disciplines are thinly supported because they are young ... Infrastructure rewirers are one example Read the entry: Infrastructure rewirers
Mean	2.7	3.1	2.7	3.3	3.1	3.0

Scale: 1 Missing; 2 Emerging; 3 Developing; 4 Established; 5 Fully mature

Note: Shading in this table indicates depth of established support. A darker cell means more architecture has been built up around that discipline in that dimension. This does not necessarily imply that the work is better, or closer to where it ought to be. Overall is the mean of the five ratings; We are aware that averaging a five-point ordinal scale is not good statistical practice. We include averages as illustrative guides to aid comparison.

How to read the table

The table is intended to measure the extent of support in each dimension today. There are a range of reasons why support might be thin, and they call for different responses.

Support for some disciplines is thin because they have been starved or underrecognised, despite the work itself being well-established. The work might be well understood by the people who do it, but there has been little funding or institutional attention. Community stewards are an example. They get the lowest overall rating in the table, at 1.2, yet almost all the practitioners we spoke to recognised that this work is valuable.
Some disciplines are thinly supported because they are young, and have not had time to accumulate support like journals, meetups, or training. Infrastructure rewirers are one example, while one could argue that relational practice in public service is further along but still relatively early in its journey to establish adequate support.
Some are thinly supported by choice, or would be damaged if support was ‘thicker’. One example is civic space-making. The work of holding a space open – being present, not running a programme, letting a room fill with agency and potential – is especially hard to codify, and several practitioners were explicit that codification could hinder this work. Civic institution-builders make a related point from a different angle: much of their value lies in working against the grain, so overly codifying or professionalising this work could lose the rebellious spirit that makes it powerful.

Our assessment is intended as a guide rather than implying that all disciplines should aim to achieve full maturity across all dimensions of support.