Speaker
Description
Planning education faces a persistent challenge: equipping planners with the knowledge and skills to navigate an increasingly uncertain and complex world. The discipline's boundaries remain fluid (Myers and Banerjee, 2005), and its intellectual foundations are interdisciplinary and ever-evolving (Davoudi, 2009). This complexity makes planning difficult to define, but it also fosters versatility, flexibility, and creativity. As Ferreira, Sykes and Batey (2009) metaphorically describe it, planning theory resembles the mythical multi-headed creature, the Hydra, in that it lacks a single dominant paradigm and is made up of multiple paradigms that coexist.The evolving nature of planning theory raises critical questions: What knowledge areas should the planning discipline prioritize? How can educators prepare students to deal with the social, environmental, and ethical uncertainties of contemporary urban challenges? Davoudi & Pendlebury (2010, s. 638) identify three key areas: (1) space as the core object of inquiry; (2) the nature of integrative knowledge; and (3) the interface between knowledge and action.
Kunzmann (1985, p. 442) states that planning education has been in crisis since its inception and will continue to be so, but that this should not be seen as a weakness. This paper also considers uncertainty as an inherent feature of planning education and argues that it can be a source of strength rather than a limitation when managed strategically. The need to address epistemological uncertainty necessitates an adaptive and dynamic pedagogical approach that reflects the complexity of planning itself. This study explores the following research question: How can studio pedagogy be used as a transformative learning environment to equip planning students with the knowledge and skills necessary to navigate contemporary socio-spatial challenges and epistemological uncertainties in planning education? In line with this question, the research will employ reflexive and situated learning methods.
This paper argues that studio pedagogy is a critical tool in equipping students with the necessary skills to respond to contemporary urban challenges. The evolution of studio pedagogy has been shaped by broader paradigm shifts in planning education. In response to urban issues of the late 1960s and early 1970s, planning adopted a social science orientation, expanding the definition of 'studio' as a pedagogical approach (Wetmore and Heumann, 1988). This shift is described by Baum (1997) as a 'hidden curriculum' that transformed practice-oriented teaching. By the late 1990s and early 2000s—what Anacker (2024) refers to as the fourth era of planning—the studio once again became a subject of planning education research, reflecting a renewed interest in practice-based education and studio-based learning. We argue that two key dynamics triggered the return of the studio in planning schools: (1) The Rise of Neoliberalism and the Importance of Space and (2) Ecological Thresholds and Social Inequalities. The strength of studio pedagogy lies not only in its capacity as a medium in which theoretical knowledge is transmitted and practice is learnt, but also in its capacity to encourage students to question the way they think when making ethical and political decisions.
By repositioning studio pedagogy as a transformative learning environment, this study contributes to the debate on how planning education can better respond to contemporary socio-spatial challenges. We believe that a pedagogical transformation that goes beyond theoretical teaching and actively prepares students for the uncertainties and ethical complexities of professional planning practice is essential.
References
Anacker, K.B. (2024) ‘The Evolution of the Four Eras of Urban Planning Education in the United States’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 44(4), pp. 2294–2304. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X231177436.
Baum, H.S. (1997) ‘Teaching Practice’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17(1), pp. 21–29. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9701700103.
Davoudi, S. (2009) ‘Planning and interdisciplinarity’, in. AESOP Heads of School Seminar.
Ferreira, A., Sykes, O. and Batey, P. (2009) ‘Planning Theory or Planning Theories? The Hydra Model and its Implications for Planning Education’, Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 4(2), pp. 29–54. Available at: https://doi.org/10.11120/jebe.2009.04020029.
Kunzmann, K.R. (1985) ‘Educating planners in Europe: trends and requirements - an international perspective’, Town Planning Review, 56(4), p. 442. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.56.4.x67130n53544744k.
Myers, D. and Banerjee, T. (2005) ‘Toward Greater Heights for Planning: Reconciling the Differences between Profession, Practice, and Academic Field’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(2), pp. 121–129. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360508976687.
Wetmore, L.B. and Heumann, L.F. (1988) ‘The Changing Role of the Workshop Course in Educating Planning Professionals’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 7(3), pp. 135–146. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X880070030.
| Keywords | planning theory; planning education; studio pedagogy; transformative learning |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
