A turning point for planning theory? Overcoming dividing discourses

Abstract

Note: This is a revised and updated version of WP 2013-02 of the same title. This version supercedes the earlier one. After communicative planning theory (CPT) emerged in the 1980's, challenging assumptions and prevailing theories of planning, debates ensued among planning theorists that led to apparently opposing groups with little space for mutual learning. The most difficult obstacle is that critiques of CPT framed several dichotomies making different perspectives appear incompatible. This article seeks to advance the dialogue of planning theory perspectives by acknowledging the key tensions embedded in this framing, but arguing that they can be viewed as reflecting contradictions to be embraced as an opportunity for a more robust planning theory. the work of a cluster of scholars in planning and related fields 2 who conducted fine-grained, interpretive research on planners and planning processes, using concepts from social theorists as tools to make sense of what they observed and to develop normative perspectives on practice.They focused in considerable part on communication, interaction and dialogue, and drew new theorists into planning thought, including most notably Habermas, Foucault, and Dewey. They wrote stories of practice, along with reflections on them. While CP theorists each took a different angle, they became a community of sorts, sharing drafts of manuscripts, discussing ideas on panels and in personal correspondence, building their work on one another's ideas. Today planning theory seems to have become a set of dividing discourses. 7 People talk past one another. Blame, criticism, and incivility often crowd out scholarly dialogue and inquiry (e.g. Bengs 2005). Theorists belong to discourse communities which employ different languages and methods toward different ends. Students are often confused and frustrated, craving a way to make sense of the differences. While the brouhaha may have started as a war over turf and over which views will be dominant, the result today is that we, as theorists, have little ability to learn from our differences. The situation is neither conducive to constructive conversation, nor to building richer and more robust theory. The most difficult obstacle to such conversation is that the critiques have framed a set of dichotomies among perspectives, making them appear incompatible. Purpose and outline of the paperThis paper takes on the project of helping the field move toward a common discourse through which we can explore and learn from our differences. We will not try to merge the perspectives- In this paper we will offer a way to move forward by applying the lens of Castells' theory of communication power (Castells 2009). We start with brief summaries of the so-called rational model, contrasting it with CPT, then moving on to the major critiques and to Castells' basic theory. We then examine four seeming contradictions that emerge from the critiques: community knowledge versus science; communication power versus state power; collaboration versus conflict; and proc...

Untitled

“…At that time, the scientific method and its reliance on rationality was considered to be the major paradigm that would succeed in convincing policy makers of the merits of a particular plan or policy. This model was later criticised for being ineffective in really convincing decision makers (Innes and Booher, 2015). The rational model was also criticised for its conservative streak and insensitivity to issues of injustice vis-à-vis the loci of power (Forester, 1989).…”

“…A major stream in planning theory is communicative planning. It still commands centre place, despite some criticism, to which Innes and Booher (2015) respond. The currency of this paradigm is indicated by Lauria and Wagner's (2006) quantitative analysis of research publications, and by my ongoing observations of the research topics of PhD students and early-career academics at AESOP.…”

Coping with functional interrelatedness and stakeholder fragmentation in planning at the infrastructure-land use interface: The potential merits of a design approach

“…Such planning approaches can be partly satisfied with a collaborative governance style (Innes and Booher 2014;Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012). Collaborative governance approaches emerged to address decision-making issues among mutually dependent but operationally autonomous actors within such fragmented stakeholder contexts, which could not be solved by conventional hierarchical (Sørensen and Torfing 2009;Van Bueren, Klijn, and Koppenjan 2003).…”

Making a difference : boundary management in spatial governance

“…Collaborative planning represents a field of discourse with diverging views (Innés and Booher, 2015). Before we can explore diverging discourses on complementary roles of governmental and societal actors in collaborative planning, we first need to clarify how we approach discourse.…”

“…Brand and Gaffikin, 2007;Innés and Booher, 2015;Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger, 1998). Instead of as a prescriptive concept of how collaborative planning should be practiced, we take collaborative planning as a descriptive concept and analyse the boundary between the roles of governmental and societal actors in collaborative planning discourses.…”