Speaker
Description
In planning as a professional discipline, the term ‘planning’ in Planning Theory carries a dual meaning – planning as a field of study and planning as a professional activity. In terms of planning as a field of study, the project of planning theory has made substantial progress, having developed an extremely diverse range of theories that interpret and evaluate planning as a phenomenon. However, when considering planning as a professional activity, planning theory has made unsatisfactory progress—evident in its marginal presence in planning practice and the persistent feeling among practitioners that planning theory is not relevant enough to their work (Klosterman, 2011).
This article examines four key propositions, primarily influenced by the pragmatist tradition, that claim to make planning theory more useful: 1) Contextualist approach: planning theory would be more useful if it provided a more nuanced theorization of planning context; 2) Behavioural approach: planning theory would be more useful if it offered a more realistic theorization of planning behaviour; 3) Phronetic approach: planning theory would be more useful if planning theorists/academics conducted research with enhanced practical wisdom (Flyvbjerg, 2009); 4) Praxis approach: planning theory would be more useful if it could translate abstract principles into concrete practical guidance.
While these approaches are indeed relevant, this article argues that they are far from sufficient for planning theory to gain more presence in professional practice. In response, the article revisits the literature on classic pragmatism. Through this re-examination, it argues that a key issue for current planning theory is its overly focused adoption of pragmatist ideas—primarily focusing on John Dewey’s emphasis on situational judgment and his pragmatist ethics of democracy, while underappreciating two critical ideas: 1) the pragmatist methodology (theory of inquiry) and its capacity to bridge the theoretical and practical worlds; 2) Charles Sanders Peirce’s emphasis on the fixation of belief through a community of inquiry.
The conclusion of this article suggests that the key mission to make planning theory more relevant to the professional world is to generate practical planning propositions that can be shared by the professional planning community. This should be achieved through the development of a pragmatist methodological theory that: 1) is case-driven; 2) is actor-centric; 3) produces research findings with generality that can be easily extrapolated to other contexts.
References
Klosterman, R. (2011). ‘Planning Theory Education: A Thirty-Year Review’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(3), 319-331.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2009). ‘Phronetic planning research: theoretical and methodological reflections’, Planning Theory and Practice, 5(3), 283-306.
| Keywords | Pragmatism; Planning Theory; Methodology; John Dewey; Charles Peirce; Theory-Practice Gap |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
