Knowledge and Action: Making the Link

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...

show abstract

“…1. A major thrust of the change was a concern that theory be linked to practice (de Neufville, 1983(de Neufville, , 1987Forester 1980). 2.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A turning point for planning theory? Overcoming dividing discourses

Innes¹,

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Assumption 3 : Even if citizens are exposed to the requisite cyber security knowledge and decide to take notice of it, it cannot be taken for granted that they will act on that knowledge (Campbell 2012; de Neufville 1987; Geller, Erickson, and Buttram 1983; Holcomb et al 2009). People rely on heuristics, feelings, biases, and emotional reasoning when acting on knowledge (Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier 2011).…”

Section: Question 3: What Assumptions Have Been Made?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cyber Security Responsibilization: An Evaluation of the Intervention Approaches Adopted by the Five Eyes Countries and China

Renaud

Orgeron²,

Warkentin

et al. 2020

Public Administration Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Governments can intervene to a greater or lesser extent in managing the risks that citizens face. They can adopt a maximal intervention approach (e.g., COVID‐19) or a hands‐off approach (e.g., unemployment), effectively “responsibilizing” their citizens. To manage the cyber risk, governments publish cyber‐related policies. This article examines the intervention stances the governments adopt in supporting individual citizens managing their personal cyber risk. The authors pinpoint the cyber‐related responsibilities that several governments espouse, applying a “responsibilization” analysis. Those applying to citizens are identified, thereby revealing the governments' cyber‐related intervention stances. The analysis reveals that most governments adopt a minimal cyber‐related intervention stance in supporting their citizens. Given the increasing number of successful cyber attacks on individuals, it seems time for the consequences of this stance to be acknowledged and reconsidered. The authors argue that governments should support individual citizens more effectively in dealing with cyber threats.

show abstract

“…Los estudios de la teoría comunicativa se apoyan en investigaciones cualitativas e interpretativas para entender la singularidad de cada contexto. Los temas que suelen abordarse desde este enfoque teórico son el estudio de los planificadores "en" su trabajo (Forester, 1988), la reflexión desde la práctica (Schön, 1983), las formas de negociación y de consenso (Susskind, 1987), la ética (Howe, 1990), las representaciones (Liggett, 1991), el diseño de los procesos (Ryson y Crosby, 1992), las relaciones intergubernamentales (Christensen, 1985), la construcción social del conocimiento (Innes 1990;De Neufville, 1987;Flyvbjerg, 2013), y los discursos y la retórica (Throgmorton, 1991). En síntesis, si consideramos todos los temas mencionados, podemos decir que la teoría comunicativa contribuye con la definición de dos elementos clave de la práctica del planeamiento: el rol de los técnicos y el rol de la información.…”

Section: Objetosunclassified

La construcción social del Planeamiento Urbano: elementos para la investigación empírica y la reflexión desde la práctica

Elinbaum¹

2018

ACE: Architecture, City and Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Knowledge and Action: Making the Link

Cited by 30 publications

References 8 publications

A turning point for planning theory? Overcoming dividing discourses

A turning point for planning theory? Overcoming dividing discourses

Cyber Security Responsibilization: An Evaluation of the Intervention Approaches Adopted by the Five Eyes Countries and China

La construcción social del Planeamiento Urbano: elementos para la investigación empírica y la reflexión desde la práctica

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About