Hear the Rime of the Fellow Mariner? A Letter to the Next Generation of Emphatic Co-Creators in Planning

Abstract

This commentary centres on the questionhow can we further develop the relationship between planning practice and academia? This question has been one of the central pillars of planning scholarship over several decades (Krumholz, 1986), but many would agree that previous arguments have not yet been taken far enough in action. Drawing upon the web of existing arguments for a closer theory-practice relationship, our intent is to unpack additional experiential dimensions of this overarching question that need to be understood in a relational manner. Any such understanding should be placed in the context of non-collaborative pressures in both practice and academia, and open new pathways for understanding structural barriers to their closer collaboration. To this end, we will start by explaining the demanding contexts that planning now faces. We then reflect on how planning in itself is a complex procedural practice. The central premise here is that planning is institutional, but ultimately a human action at its core, that is characterised by psychosocial dynamics that need to be accounted for. Advancing this argument, we will acknowledge previous reflections on psychosocial aspects of planners' everyday. Arguing from inference, we conclude that furthering collaboration between practice and academia will require understanding the diverse and dynamic experiences of planners whose everyday practices are embedded within complex psychosocial processes, distributed across various social networks and time. Bearing in mind these deeper understandings of planning as a complex and deeply emotional practice, we reflect on potential actions for developing co-creation processes that engage both practice and academia. Of Wicked Problems and Planning Complexities In light of the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (IPCC, 2019), humanity has to face the fact that wicked problems, highlighted decades ago (Rittel & Webber, 1973), still hang above us like Damocles' sword. We live on a limited planet, where resources are often scarce compared to current human needs (Raworth, 2012). Moreover, natural, infrastructural, and technological systems have a large number of interdependent relations, resulting in a non-linear and rapidly changing reality (de Roo & Silva, 2010; Sengupta, Rauws, & de Roo, 2016). At the centre of this existential understanding is the idea that multidimensional human ends are not static and fully defined, and that various groups have different needs, over time. Thus, transitions out of our unsustainable lifestyles require not only changes in the built environment and technological systems but, most importantly, in our behaviours and societal values (Geels, Sovacool, Schwanen, & Sorrell, 2017). However, this state of irreducibly high

The Landscape of Envisioning and Speculative Design Methods for Sustainable Mobility Futures

“…In contrast with decision-support systems literature [185], many of the implemented methodologies lack detailed descriptions or visualizations of steps and relations between those steps, thus requiring from the reader additional interpretation in order for the methodology to be applied elsewhere. If researchers see such issues through the lens of long-term organizational learning in multi-actor and dynamic social processes of planning practice [186], they would have to start with developing empathy for the practitioners [187]. If the advanced methods are to be used in practice and for acting in the times of climate crisis, their operationalization will require in-depth understanding of complex everyday realities of those who should use these methods in practice, often facing lack of resources or time.…”

The impact of actor-relational dynamics on integrated planning practice

“…Reflection over potential methods will inevitably lead to questions about other conceptualisations of organisational learning and associated social practices, as well as the nonlinear and complex nature of planning processes. Such a conceptualisation of complexity from within planning processes will have to deepen its understanding of the psychosocial realities that actors in planning experience on a daily basis (Mladenović and Eräranta, 2020).…”

Agency and Structure in Urban and Regional Planning: An Illustrative Overview and Future Research Agenda

“…Referring to the “emotional paradox of public engagement,” Lyles and White (2019) note that planners identify emotions as motivating them to commit to the public interest but at the same time treat emotions as flaws or obstacles to be removed from their work. Consequently, while competences and skills of planners are discussed widely (see also “Archetypes of actors in the literature on urban and regional planning” section), studies on the emotions of planners and their influence on the planning process remain scarce (Ferreira 2013; Baum 2015; Mladenovic and Eräranta 2020).…”

“…Thus, while emotions relate to individuals, they are equally important in research on organizations, which are characterized by shared values, beliefs, and norms. As the work of Mladenović and Eräranta (2020) highlights, the need to understand human action and emotions are a crucial part of the complexity of the planning process, since the actions of and relationships between different actors define the planning process.…”