Planning scholarship will benefit from research conversations focused on cumulative knowledge about how planning works and how urban settlements work. Our everyday decisions present opportunities. (1) Initiate and sustain conversations through conferences. (2) Referee papers to encourage cumulative scholarship. (3) Cultivate funding sources. (4) Establish awards that recognize contributions to conversations. (5) Hire faculty with scholarly conversations in mind.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alterman, R. , and M. Hill. 1978. Implementation of land use plans. Journal of the American Institute of Planners44 (3): 274-285.
2.
Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP)Strategic Marketing Committee . 1997. Anchor points for planning’s identification. Journal of Planning Education and Research16 (3): 223-224.
3.
Boyer, E. L.1990. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
4.
Brill, E. D. Jr. , J. M. Flach, L. D. Hopkins, and S. Ranjithan. 1990. MGA: A decision support system for complex, incompletely defined problems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics20 (4): 745-757.
5.
Bryson, J. M.1991. There is no substitute for an empirical defense of planning and planners. Journal of Planning Education and Research10 (2): 164-165.
6.
Bryson, J. M. , P. Bromiley, and Y. S. Jung. 1990. Influences of context and process on project planning success. Journal of Planning Education and Research9 (3): 183-195.
7.
Burby, R. J. , P. J. May, P. R. Berke, L. C. Dalton, S. P. French, and E. J. Kaiser. 1997. Making governments plan: State experiments in managing land use. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
8.
Crane, R.1997. Sprawl, I hardly know ye. Journal of the American Planning Association63 (2): 278-279.
9.
Dalton, L.1989. Emerging knowledge about planning practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research9 (1): 29-44.
10.
Ewing, R.1997. Counterpoint: Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable?Journal of the American Planning Association63 (1): 107-126.
11.
Forester, J.1989. Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of California Press.
12.
Goldstein, H. A. 1997. The pattern and types of scholarly contributions to planning. Paper read at the 39th Conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, 6-9 November, at Fort Lauderdale, FL.
13.
Gordon, P. , and H. W. Richardson. 1997. Point: Are compact cities a desirable planning goal?Journal of the American Planning Association63 (1): 95-106.
14.
Healey, P.1992. A planner’s day: Knowledge and action in communicative practice. Journal of the American Planning Association58 (1): 9-20.
15.
Helling, A.1998. Collaborative visioning: Proceed with caution. Journal of the American Planning Association64 (3): 335-349.
16.
Hoch, C.1994. What planners do: Power, politics, and persuasion. Chicago: Planners Press, American Planning Association.
17.
Hopkins, L. D.1984a. Evaluation of methods for exploring ill-defined problems. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design11: 339-348.
18.
Hopkins, L. D.1984b. Theory of elephants. Journal of Planning Education and Research4 (2): 135.
19.
Hopkins, L. D.1995. 1995 Chester Rapkin Award for the Best Article in Volume 14: Acceptance speech. Journal of Planning Education and Research15 (1): 64-65.
20.
Huff, A. S.1999. Writing for scholarly publication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
Innes, J. E.1995. Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research14 (3): 183-189.
22.
Johnson, D. A.1996. Planning the great metropolis: The 1929 regional plan of New York and its environs.In Studies in history, planning and the environment, edited by G. E. Cherry and A. Sutcliffe. London: E & FN Spon.
23.
Knaap, G. J. , L. D. Hopkins, and K. P. Donaghy. 1998. Do plans matter? A framework for examining the logic and effects of land use planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research18 (1): 25-34.
24.
Lai, S.-K. , and L. D. Hopkins. 1995. Can decision makers express multiattribute preferences using AHP and MUT? An experiment. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design22 (1): 21-34.
25.
Lee, I. , and L. D. Hopkins. 1995. Procedural expertise for efficient multiattribute evaluation: A procedural support strategy for CEA. Journal of Planning Education and Research14 (4): 255-268.
26.
Mastop, H. , and A. Faludi. 1997. Evaluation of strategic plans: The performance principle. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design24: 815-832.
27.
Miller, R. W.1987. Fact and method: Explanation, confirmation and reality in the natural and the social sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28.
Stiftel, B. , and C. E. Connerly. 1995. Submissions and reviews in the Journal of Planning Education and Research: 1991-1992. Journal of Planning Literature9: 255-266.
29.
Stiftel, B. , and C. E. Connerly. 1997. Images of planning scholarship: Submissions and reviews in the Journal of Planning Education and Research, 1991-1996. Paper read at the 39th Conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, 6-9 November, at Fort Lauderdale, FL.
30.
Talen, E.1996a. After the plans: Methods to evaluate the implementation success of plans. Journal of Planning Education and Research16 (2): 79-91.
31.
Talen, E.1996b. Do plans get implemented? A review of evaluation in planning. Journal of Planning Literature10 (3): 248-259.
32.
Teitz, M. B.1996. American planning in the 1990s: Evolution, debate and challenge. Urban Studies33 (4-5): 649-671.
33.
Trybus, T. W. , and L. D. Hopkins. 1980. Humans versus computer algorithms for the plant layout problem. Managemet Science26: 570-574.
