Emotions in planning practice: a critical review and a suggestion for future developments based on mindfulness

Abstract

Planners typically conceptualise themselves as professionals not emotionally engaged with their work.However, in planning practice, there are many discretionary decisions to make and these are easily affected by emotions. The uncomfortable truth is that planning practice is emotionally loaded, but scepticism about emotions discourages research on the topic. Academic research based on psychoanalytical theory has been developed in response to this. This research seems, however, to have little power to provide high quality practical tools for professional planners. Mindfulness theory and training is presented here as a better alternative to equip practitioners with resources to deal with emotions at work.

Social learning as an analytical lens for co-creative planning

“…The concept of social learning was developed in the 1980's and '90's into various directions, sometimes along with other, similar or related concepts (such as deliberative learning, reflective learning, policy learning, communicative planning, tacit knowledge and emotions in planning [e.g. Baum, 2015;Ferreira, 2013;Forester, 1999;Healey, 1992;Holden, 2008;Schön, 1982]). For example, some studies focused on what affects planners' learning processes, often including ways in which planners learn to interact with others, or how they learn through education, interactions, experiences and from stories and friends (e.g.…”

“…Several planning scholars have highlighted that it is problematic to assume that planners' personal dynamics do not exist or are irrelevant (e.g. Baum, 1983Baum, , 2015Ferreira, 2013;Schön, 1982;Tewdwr-Jones, 2002). The assumption that individuals are 'blank pages' at the beginning of a planning process, disregarding their previous knowledge, networks and experiences, is nevertheless persistent in much planning research and practices.…”

“…While planning literature has certainly acknowledged several of these factors from the perspective of plannerssuch as the importance of emotions, personal dynamics, and power relations (e.g. Baum, 2015;Ferreira, 2013;Forester, 1999;Tewdwr-Jones, 2002) -, co-creative planning by definition includes several non-planners (Voorberg et al, 2015). The psychological aspects of the interaction between planners and non-planners, as well as between different non-planners involved in planning processes, warrant deeper engagement in planning research and practice, especially in view of their increasing relevance to the field.…”

“…There is a wide-ranging wealth of studies on social learning in planning, especially when closely related themes, such as policy transfer, deliberative or communicative planning, reflexivity and emotions in planning are also taken into consideration (e.g. Baum, 1983Baum, , 1987Baum, , 2015Ferreira, 2013;Forester, 1999;Friedmann, 1981Friedmann, , 1987Healey, 1992Healey, , 2008Healey, , 2013Holden, 2008;Mäntysalo, Schmidt-Thomé, & Syrman, 2018;Peel, 2000;Schön, 1982;Tewdwr-Jones, 2002). This article builds on these important contributions and demonstrates the value of the development of social learning as an analytical lens informed by psychology, in relation to the impact of various personal and group dynamics, specifically in the context of co-creation.…”

Unpacking social learning in planning: who learns what from whom?

“…This map enables the empirical review of planning projects and unpacks how social learning influences planning practice in its various phases and contexts. It thereby contributes and relates to key skills planners need (see Baum 1983Baum , 2015Ferreira 2013;Forester 1999;Healey 1992;Schön 1982).…”