Bringing international perspectives to education has been a concern of many academic areas. In the case of urban planning, a professional field, this means preparing students to practice effectively in the variety of contexts found in the United States and around the world. The urban planning accreditation requirements and the views of graduates of accredited programs practicing abroad are herein examined. The vast majority of graduates suggest that a more “international view of planning” be incorporated into the curriculum. Based on specific suggestions from graduates and the current content of the accreditation guidelines, the authors recommend ways in which a global approach can be brought to planning education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AfsharF, 1990, “Inequalities, Western roots and implementation problems: Three challenges to a one-world planning education”, in Breaking the Boundaries: A One-World Approach to Planning Education Ed. SanyalB (Plenum Press, New York) pp 231–247
2.
AmirahmadiH, 1988, “Universalism in planning education: Toward an interactive pedagogy”Ekistics55 (328–330) 69–76
3.
D'SouzaD, 1991, “The politics of force-fed multiculturalism”The Christian Science Monitor 22 April, page 19
4.
El-ShakhsS, 1990, “The language of planners: A central issue in internationalizing planning education”, in Breaking the Boundaries: A One-World Approach to Planning Education Ed. SanyalB (Plenum Press, New York) pp 83–87
5.
GakenheimerR, 1990, “Comparison and choice in urban transportation”, in Breaking the Boundaries: A One-World Approach to Planning Education Ed. SanyalB (Plenum Press, New York) pp 155–171
6.
GoldschmidtC, 1991, “Education before planning”, in Proceedings, International Conference on Dynamic Transformation of Societies, 10–11 October, Seoul, South KoreaKorea Planners Association, 635–4 Yeoksan-Dong, Kangnam-Ku, Seoul, Korea, pp 642–656
7.
GrahamE D, 1991, “Internationalizing the university curriculum: Theoretical problems, practical solutions”, in Proceedings, International Conference on Dynamic Transformation of Societies, 10–11 October, Seoul, South KoreaKorea Planners Association, 635–4 Yeoksan-Dong, Kangnam-Ku, Seoul, Korea, pp 657–670
8.
HigginsB, 1981, “Planning regional development: Art, science, or philosophy? The challenge of the 1980s”, in Training for Regional Development Planning: Perspectives for the Third Development Decade Ed. MathurO P (Maruzen Asia, Singapore) pp 137–175
9.
HinojosaR CLyonsT CZinnF D, 1992, “The relevancy of North American planning education for overseas practice: A survey of graduates”Journal of Planning Education and Research12(1) 32–38
10.
LimG C, 1990, “Beyond Taoism: Comparative environmental planning”, in Breaking the Boundaries: A One-World Approach to Planning Education Ed. SanyalB (Plenum Press, New York) pp 91–105
11.
OberlanderH P, 1987, “Barefoot planners: Training activities in developing countries in support of community action, training of settlement workers and basic skill training”, OC-40, Center for Human Settlements, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC
12.
PAB, 1990, “The accreditation document: Criteria and procedures of the planning accreditation program”Planning Accreditation Board, 1776 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036
13.
SanyalB, 1989, “Poor countries' students in rich countries' universities: Possibilities of planning education for the twenty-first century”Journal of Planning Education and Research8(3) 139–155
14.
SanyalB (Ed.), 1990Breaking the Boundaries: A One-World Approach to Planning Education (Plenum Press; New York)
15.
SchönD A, 1983The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action (Basic Books, New York)
16.
ShirtsR G, 1977Bafa Bafa Simile II, 218 12th Street, Del Mar, CA 92014
