The metaphor of planning theory as a lens through which to analyze practice can assist inI defining an appropriate role for planning theory. This metaphor is not new to planning, and its previous use by theorists is shown to be both explicit and implicit. The objective of this paper is to consolidate and extend the metaphor of planning theory as a lens, with the primary concern being to provide assistance to planning educators, students, and researchers in approaching planning theory. The lens metaphor is also contended as a useful construct in crafting a sense of community in the face of calls for theoretical diversity in planning theory.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abram, S.1998. Why do people have faith in planning? Rationalities and realities in the British planning system. Papers in Environmental Planning Research, No. 16, Department of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff University, Wales.
2.
Alexander, E.1997. A mile or a millimeter? Measuring the “planining theolypractice gap.”Environment and PlanningB: Planning and Design2(1):3-6.
3.
Allmendinger, P., and M. Tewdwr-Jones. 1997. Mind the gap: Planning theory-practice and the translationi of knowledge into action. A comment on Alexander (I1997). Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design24(6):802-806.
4.
Arnstein, S.R.1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Jouirnal of the American Institute of Planners35(4): 216-224.
5.
Baum, H. S.1996. Practicing planniing theory in a political world. In Explorations in Planning Theory, eds. S.J. Mandelbaum, L. Mazza, and R.W. Burchell, 365-382. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research.
6.
Breheny, M.J.1983. A practical view of planning theory. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design10(1):101-115.
7.
Buttimer, A.1993. Geography and the Human Spirit. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Lfopkiiis Uniiversity Press.
8.
Etzioni, A.1973. Mixed-scanning: A “third” approach to decision-making. In A Reader in Planning Theory, A. Faludi, ed., 217-229. Oxford, U.K.: Pergamon Press.
9.
Feldman, M.M.A.1995. Regime and regulation in explanatory planning theory. Planning Theory14:65-95.
10.
Fischer, F., and J. Forester, eds. 1993. TheArgumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. London: UCL Press.
11.
Fiumara, G.C.1995. The Metaphoric Process: Connections between Language andLife. London: Routledge.
12.
Flyvbjerg, B.1998a. Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.
13.
Flyvbjerg, B.1998b. Empowering civil society: Habermas, Foucault and the question of conflict. In Cities for Citizens. Planning and the Rise of Civil Society in a GlobalAge, eds. M. Douglass and J. Friedmann, 185-211. Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley and Sons.
14.
Forester, J.1989. Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley: University of California Press.
15.
Forester, J.1993. Critical Theory, Public Policy and Planning Practice. Toward a Critical Pragmatism. Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press.
16.
Forester, J.1998. Rationality, dialogue and learning: What community and environmental mediators can teach us about the practice of planning. In Cities for Citizens. Planning and the Rise of Civil Society in a Global Age, eds. M. Douglass and J. Friedmann, 213-225. Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley and Sons.
17.
Forester, J.2000. Why bother with planning theory: Educating citizens, recognizing differences, and mediating deliberations. In The Profession of City Planning: Changes, Images, and Challenges, 1950-2000, ed. L. Rodwin and B. Sanyal. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research.
18.
Foucault, M.1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge. A.M. Sheridan Smith, trans. New York: Pantheon Books.
19.
Friedmann, J.1998. Planning theory revisited. European Planning Studies6(3):245-253.
20.
Friedmann, J., and M. Douglass, eds. 1998. Citiesfor Citizens: Planning and the Rise of Civil Society in a GlobalAge, 1-6. Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley and Sons.
21.
Goatly, A.1997. The Language ofMetaphor. London: Routledge.
22.
Green, T.F.1993. Learning without metaphor. In Metaphor and Thought, ed. A. Ortony, 610-619. Cambridge, Mass.: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
23.
Harris, N.1997. Orienting oneself to practice: A comment on Alexander. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design24(6):799-801.
24.
Healey, P.1991. Researching planning practice. Town Planning Review62(4):447-459.
25.
Healey, P.1992. A planner's day: Knowledge and action in communicative practice. Journal oftheAmerican PlanningAssociation58(1):9-20.
Hoch, C.1995. Teaching ethics and planning theory. In Plaknning Ethics. A Reader in Planning Theory, Practice and Education, ed. S. Hendler, 281-300. New Brunswick, N.J.: Ceniter for Urban Poticy Research.
28.
Horton, R.1974. African traditional thought and Western science. In Rationality, ed. B. R. Wilson, 131-171. Oxford: Basil Black-well.
29.
Huxley, M., and O. Yiftachel. 2000. New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the “communicative turn” in planning theory. Journal ofPlanning Education and Research19(4).
30.
Innes, J.E.1995. Planning theory's emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal ofPlanning Education and Research14(3):183-189.
31.
Innes, J.1998. Information in communicative planning. Journal of the American PlanningAssociation64(1):52-63.
32.
Kittay, E.F.1987. Metaphor: Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Strtucture. Ox-ford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
33.
Kuhn, T.S.1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2ind edition. London: University of Chicago Press.
34.
Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.
35.
Lakoff, G., and M. Turner. 1989. A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.
36.
Lauria, M.1997. Communicating in a vacuum: Will anyone hear?Planning Theory17: 40-42.
37.
Lauria, M., and M.J. Soll. 1996. Communicative action, power, and misinformation in a site selection process. Journal of Planning Education and Research15(3):199-211.
38.
Lauria, M., and R.K. Whelan. 1995. Planning theory and political economy: The need for reintegration. Planning Theory14:8-33.
39.
Mandelbaum, S.J.1979. A complete general theory of planning is impossible. Policy SciencesII(1):59-71.
40.
Marris, P.1987. Meaning andAction: Community Planning and Conceptions of Change, 2nd edition. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
41.
Mayer, R.E.1993. The instructive metaphor: Metaphoric aids to students' understanding of science. In Metaphor and Thought, ed. A. Ortony, 561-578. Cambridge, Mass.: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
42.
McDowell, L.1995. Understanding diversity: The problem of/for “theory.” In Geographies of Global Change. Remapping the World in the Late Twentieth Century, eds. R.J. Johnston, P.J. Taylor, and M.J. Watts, 280-294. Oxford, U.K.: Basil Blackwell.
43.
McLoughlin, J.B.1969. Urban and Regional Planning. A Systems Approach. London: Faber and Faber.
44.
de Neufville, J.E.1983. Planning theory and practice: Bridging the gap. Journal of Planning Education and Research3(1):35-45.
45.
Pepper, S.C.1972 [1942]. World Hypotheses: A Study in Evidence. Berkeley: University of California Press.
46.
Petrie, H.G. and R.S. Oshlag. 1993. Metaphor and learning. In Metaphor and Thought, ed. A. Ortony, 579-609. Cambridge, Mass.: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
47.
Poulton, M.C.1991. The case for a positive theory of planning. Part 1: What is wrong with planning theory?Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design18(2):225-232.
48.
Richmond, J. E. D.1995. Introducing philosophical theories to urban transportation planning. In Planning Ethics. A Reader in Planning Theory, Practice and Education, ed. S. Hendler, 301-320. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research.
49.
Rittel, H., and M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences4(2): 155-169.
50.
Sager, T.1993: Paradigms for planning: A rationality-based classification. Planning Theory9 (Summer):70-118.
51.
Schon, D.A.1993. Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy. In Metaphor and Thought, ed. A. Ortony, 137-163. Cambridge, Mass.: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
52.
Schon, D.A., and M. Rein. 1994. Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books.
53.
Sticht, T .G.1993. Educational uses of metaphor. In Metaphor and Thought, ed. A. Ortony, 620-632. Cambridge, Mass: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
54.
Van Maanen, J.1988. Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.
55.
Vernua, N.1993. Metaphor and analogy as elements' of a theory of similarity for planining. Journal of Planning Education and Research13(1): 13-25.
56.
Verma, N.1995. What is planning practice? The search for suitable categories. Journal of Planning Education and Research14(3): 178-182.
57.
Yiftachel, O.1998. Planning and social control: Exploring the dark side. Journal of Planning Literature12(4): 395-406.
