Some of the methodological problems that have arisen in the course of recent research in planning processes are considered with a view to providing would-be researchers with some general guidelines to help them in designing research strategies. With this essentially practical objective in mind, these problems are grouped into four broad categories for discussion purposes. These concern the question of general theoretical perspectives, the need for more precise statements regarding the nature of planning processes, the implications that follow from the adoption of a case study approach, and the need to devise a simple classification scheme which can be used to identify priority areas for future research, respectively.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdelmanCJenkinsDKemmisS, 1977“Rethinking case study: Notes from the second Cambridge conference”Cambridge Journal of Education6139–150
2.
ArgyrisCSchonD, 1978Organisational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA)
3.
BardachE, 1977The Implementation Game: What Happens After a Bill Becomes a Law (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
4.
BensonJ K, 1975“The inter-organisational network as a political economy”Administrative Science Quarterly20229–249
5.
BolanR S, 1980“The practitioner as theorist: The phenomenology of the professional episode”Journal APA46261–274
6.
BrysonJ MDelbecqA L, 1979“A contingent approach to strategy and tactics in project planning”Journal of the American Planning Association45167–179
7.
DewingA S, 1954“An introduction to the use of cases” in The Case Method at Harvard Business School Ed. McNairP (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
8.
EcksteinH, 1975“Case study and theory in political science” in Handbook of Political Science, volume 7: Strategies of Inquiry Eds GreensteinF IPolsbyN (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA)
9.
ElkinS L, 1974Politics and Land Use Planning: The London Experience (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
HallPLandHParkerRWebbA, 1975Change, Choice and Conflict in Social Policy (Heinemann, London)
12.
HealeyP, 1979“Networking as a normative principle with particular reference to local government and land use planning”Local Government Studies555–68
13.
LevinP H, 1976Government and the Planning Process (George Allen and Unwin, Hemel Hempstead, Herts)
14.
LijphartA, 1975“The comparable cases strategy in comparative research”Comparative Political Studies8158–177
15.
MajoneG, 1980“Policies as theories”Omega8151–162
16.
MasserI, 1981“Some dilemmas of urban planning” in Cities in Transition: Problems and Policies Eds NijkampPRietveldP (Sijthoff and Noordhoff, Alphen aan den Rhijn, Netherlands)
17.
MeyersonMBanfieldE C, 1955Planning, Politics and the Public Interest (Free Press, Glencoe, IL)
18.
MintzbergHRaisinghaniDTheoretA, 1976“The structure of ‘unstructured’ decision processes”Administrative Science Quarterly21246–275
19.
PalumboD J, 1973“Comparative analysis: Quasi methodology or new science?”Comparative Urban Research437–53
20.
PressmanJ LWildavskyA B, 1973Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington are Dashed in Oakland (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA)
21.
PrzeworskiATeuneH, 1970The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry (John Wiley, New York)
22.
TaylorJ L, 1977Development Control Case Studies: Tutors ManualLocal Government Training Board, Luton, Beds
23.
TaylorJ LWynnM GSmithR JHaywoodI, 1979“Local plan implementation: some case study implications for research training and management” OECD paper CT/URB/631, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris
24.
van HornC, 1978“Implementing CETA: The Federal role”Policy Analysis4159–183
25.
WatesN, 1976The Battle for Tolmers Square (Routledge and Kegan Paul, Henley-on-Thames, Oxon)
26.
WynnM G, 1980The Planning and Implementation of Development in the Barcelona Periphery: A Case Study Approach Ph D thesis, Department of Town and Country Planning, Trent Polytechnic, Notts
27.
ZaltmanGDuncanRHolbeckJ, 1973Innovations and Organisations (John Wiley, New York)
