Toward a Synthesis of Contemporary Planning Theories

Lim, Gill-Chin

doi:10.1177/0739456x8600500202

Cited by 12 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(13 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Accumulating critiques (see Alexander 1984) produced an alternative paradigm: Communicative Practice—drawing on Habermasian communicative rationality (Forester, 1980)—in a process of paradigm change and synthesis (Galloway and Mahayni, 1977; Lim, 1986). Communicative Practice (Innes, 1995; Sager, 1994) was proclaimed the new ruling paradigm (Beauregard, 1996), followed with critiques (Huxley and Yiftachel, 2000; Hytonen, 2016) 17 and responses (Innes and Booher 2015; Sager, 2012).…”

Section: Planning Theory and Practice14mentioning

confidence: 99%

On planning, planning theories, and practices: A critical reflection

Alexander

2022

Planning Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The futility of defining planning suggests that there is no planning as a recognizable practice. Sociology of knowledge definitions imply three kinds of planning practices: (1) Generic “planning”—what people do when they are planning; (2) Knowledge-centered “something” (e.g., spatial) planning; and (3) Real planning practiced in specific contexts, from metro-regional planning for Jakarta to transportation planning for the Trans-Europe Network, and enacted in general contexts, for example, informal- or Southern planning. Planning theories are linked to different practices: generic “planning” theories and “something” (e.g., regional, community, environmental, or Southern) planning theories. Selected topics illustrate the “planning” theory discourse and spatial planning theories are briefly reviewed. Three generations of planning practice studies are reviewed: the first, a-theoretical; the second, the “practice movement,” who studied practice for their own theorizing; and the third, informed by practice theories. Five books about planning show how their planning theorist authors understand planning practice. While recognizing planning as diverse practices, they hardly apply “planning” theory to planning practices. “Planning” theories are divorced from enacted planning practices, “something” (e.g., spatial) planning theories include constructive adaptations of “planning” theories and paradigms, but knowledge about real planning practices is limited. Implications from these conclusions are drawn for planning theory, education, and practices.

show abstract

Section: Planning Theory and Practice14mentioning

confidence: 99%

On planning, planning theories, and practices: A critical reflection

Alexander

2022

Planning Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, as several observers noted (e.g., de Neufville 1983; Alexander 1984; Lim 1986), abandoning the rational model appeared to leave planning theory in a state of crisis. A diverse range of conflicting perspectives were proposed to take its place but the field as a whole seemed to lack coherence and direction.…”

Section: Thirty Years Of Planning Theory1mentioning

confidence: 99%

Planning Theory Education

Klosterman¹

2011

Journal of Planning Education and Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyzes the results of a survey of planning theory course outlines conducted in 2009 parallel to three similar surveys that together provide a thirty-year review of a central component of planning education. The article begins by briefly reviewing the major intellectual developments that occurred in planning theory over the past thirty years. It then examines the course topics and required readings, authors, and texts for forty-eight master’s-level courses offered during the 2009-2010 academic year. The article concludes by evaluating the survey findings and the picture they paint of contemporary planning theory education.

show abstract

“…The need for such a philosophy, which would serve as the basis for a common ethic, a core of shared ideology, a shared sense of mission, and a common culture, has been noted by American planners for many years (Perloff 1985c;Dyckman 1978;Lim 1986;Susskind 1984). The need for such a philosophy, which would serve as the basis for a common ethic, a core of shared ideology, a shared sense of mission, and a common culture, has been noted by American planners for many years (Perloff 1985c;Dyckman 1978;Lim 1986;Susskind 1984).…”

Section: Consensus Buildingmentioning

confidence: 99%