A number of questions relating to the design and implementation of research projects in cross-national comparative planning are considered. Given the nature of the subject matter involved, it is argued that the main problems that face analysts in this field arise out of the difficulties experienced in studying phenomena in isolation from their context. Then, possible research strategies that can be adopted to deal with situations of this kind are examined with particular reference to the case-study approach that forms the predominant mode of investigation at the present time. Some implications of this approach are then discussed with reference to the design and implementation of research strategies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BourneL S, 1975Urban Systems: Strategies for Regulation, a Comparison of Policies in Britain, Sweden, Australia and Canada (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
2.
CampbellD T, 1975, “Degrees of freedom and the case study”Comparative Political Studies8178–193
3.
ChildJ, 1977Organisations: A Guide to Problems and Practice (Harper and Row, London)
4.
CropperS A, 1982, “Theory and strategy in the study of planning processes—the use of the case study”Environment and Planning B9341–357
5.
DaviesH W E, 1980, “International transfer and the inner city: Report of the Trinational Inner Cities Project” OP-5, School of Planning Studies, University of Reading, Reading, Berks
6.
FaludiA, 1973Planning Theory (Pergamon Press, Oxford)
7.
FeldmanE J, 1978, “Comparative public policy: Field or method?”Comparative Politics10287–305
8.
FriedmannJ, 1967, “The institutional context” in Action Under Planning: The Guidance of Economics Development Ed. GrossB M, (McGraw-Hill, New York) pp 31–67
9.
McCallumJ D, 1976, “Comparative study in planning: Explanations of the ‘political culture’ of planning in Britain and the United States” DP-7, Department of Town and Regional Planning, University of Glasgow, Glasgow
10.
MasserI, 1982, “The analysis of planning processes: Some methodological considerations”Environment and Planning B95–14
11.
MasserI, 1984a, “Review of Thomas et al”Town Planning Review55112–113
12.
MasserI, 1984b, “Comparative planning studies: A review”Town Planning Review55137–160
13.
MasserIvan HalWPostWvan SchijndelR, 1978, “The dynamics of development processes: Two case studies”Town Planning Review49127–148
14.
StrongAL, 1972Planned Urban Environments (The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD)
15.
ThomasDMinettJHopkinsSHamnetSFaludiABarrellD, 1983Flexibility and Commitment in Planning: A Comparative Study of Local Planning and Development in the Netherlands and England (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague)
16.
WaterhouseA, 1978, “The advent of localism in two planning cultures: Munich and Toronto”Town Planning Review50313–324
17.
WillekinsFRogersA, 1978, “Spatial population analysis: Methods and computer programs” RR-78-18, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria
18.
YinR K, 1981a, “The case study as a serious research strategy”Knowledge397–114
19.
YinR K, 1981b, “The case study crisis: Some answers”Administrative Science Quarterly2658–65
20.
YinR K, 1982, “Studying phenomenon and context across sites”American Behavioral Scientist2684–100
21.
YinR KHealdK, 1975, “Using the case study method to analyse policy studies”Administrative Science Quarterly20371–381
