This article proposes that a feminist interpretation of naturalized epistemology provides a sound basis for a deliberative planning approach. It preserves the grounds for making reasoned choices between competing validity claims while promoting a view of planning as a diverse and deliberative enterprise attentive to various ways of knowing and modes of expression. The solution is based on a revised notion of objectivity that emphasizes the important function of biases—values, experiences, and contextual commitments—in “truth tracking.”
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allen, Judith . 1996. Our town: Foucault and knowledge-based politics in London. In Explorations in planning theory, edited by Seymour Mandelbaum, Luigi Mazza, and Robert Bruchell, 328-344. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University.
2.
Amy, Douglas . 1987. Can policy analysis be ethical? In Confronting values in policy analysis. The politics of criteria, edited by Frank Fischer and John Forester, 45-69. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3.
Anderson, Elizabeth . 1995. Knowledge, human interests, and objectivity in feminist epistemology. Philosophical Topics23 (2): 27-55.
4.
Antony, Louise . 1993. Quine as feminist: The radical import of naturalized epistemology. In A mind of one’s own, edited by Louise Antony and Charlotte Witt, 185-226.
5.
Boulder, CO: Westview . Beauregard, Robert. 1989. Between modernity and postmodernity: The ambiguous position of U.S. planning. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space7: 381-395.
6.
Boulder, CO: Westview . 1991. Without a net: Modernist planning and the postmodern abyss. Journal of Planning Education and Research10: 189-194.
7.
Boyd, Richard . 1995. On the current status of scientific realism. In The philosophy of science, edited by Richard Boyd, Philip Gasper, and J. D. Trout, 195-223. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
Campbell, Richmond . 1998. Illusions of paradox: A feminist epistemology naturalized. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield.
9.
Code, Lorraine . 1993. Taking subjectivity into account. In Feminist epistemologies, edited by Linda Alcoff and Elizabeth Potter, 15-48. New York: Routledge.
10.
Collins, Patricia . 1990. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the politics of empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
11.
Dreyfus, Hubert , and Paul Rabinow. 1983. Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics. Brighton, UK: Harvester.
12.
Dryzek, John . 1990. Discursive democracy: Politics, policy, and political science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Dryzek, John . 1993. Policy analysis and planning: From science to argument. In The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning, edited by Frank Fischer and John Forester, 213-231. London: UCL Press.
14.
Ehrmann, John , and Barbara Stinson. 1999. Joint fact-finding and the use of technical experts. In The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement, edited by Lawrence Susskind, Sarah McKearnan, and Jennifer Thomas-Larmer, 375-398. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
Forester, John . 1989. Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of California Press.
16.
Forester, John . 1992. Envisioning the politics of public dispute resolution. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society12: 247-286.
17.
Forester, John . 1996. Argument, power, and passion in planning practice. In Explorations in planning theory, edited by Seymour Mandelbaum, Luigi Mazza, and Robert Bruchell, 241-262. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University.
18.
Forester, John . 1999a. The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
Forester, John . 1999b. Reflections on the future understanding of planning practice. International Planning Studies4 (2): 175-193.
20.
Forsyth, Ann.1995. Diversity issues in planning curriculum: Four stories and some suggestions for change. Journal of Planning Education and Research15: 58-63.
21.
Foucault, Michel . 1977. Discipline and punish. The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books.
22.
Foucault, Michel . 1978. The history of sexuality. Vol. 1. London: Allen Lane.
23.
Flyvbjerg, Bent . 1998. Rationality and power. Democracy in practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24.
Guttman, A. , and D. Thompson. 1996. Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
25.
Hajer, Martin . 1995. The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
26.
Hajer, Martin . 1996. Ecological modernization as cultural politics. In Risk, environment, and modernity: Towards a new ecology, edited by S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, and B. Wynne. London: Sage.
27.
Harding, Sandra . 1986. The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
28.
Harding, Sandra . 1991. Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
29.
Harper, Thomas , and Stanley Stein. 1995. Out of the postmodern abyss: Preserving the rationale for liberal planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research14: 233-244.
30.
Harper, Thomas , and Stanley Stein. 1996. Postmodernist planning theory: The incommensurability premise. In Explorations in planning theory, edited by Seymour Mandelbaum, Luigi Mazza, and Robert Bruchell, 414-429. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University.
31.
Harvey, David . 1989. The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
32.
Healey, Patsy . 1992. Planning through debate. The communicative turn in planning theory. Town Planning Review63 (2): 143-162.
33.
Healey, Patsy . 1997. Collaborative planning: Making frameworks in fragmented societies. London: Macmillan.
34.
Hoch, Charles . 1996. A pragmatic inquiry about planning and power. In Explorations in planning theory, edited by Seymour Mandelbaum, Luigi Mazza, and Robert Bruchell, 30-44. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University.
35.
Innes, Judith . 1995. Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research14: 183-189.
36.
Innes, Judith , and David Booher. 1999. Consensus building and complex adaptive systems. A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Plannig Association65: 412-423.
37.
Innes, Judith , and Sarah Connick. 1999. San Francisco estuary project. In The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement, edited by Lawrence Susskind, Sarah McKearnan, and Jennifer Thomas-Larmer, 801-827. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
Jaggar, Alison . 1983. Feminist politics and human nature. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allenheld.
39.
Jennings, Bruce . 1987. Interpretation and the practice of policy analysis. In Confronting values in policy analysis: The politics of criteria, edited by Frank Fischer and John Forester, 128-152. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
40.
Litfin, Karen . 1994. Ozone discourses: Science and politics in global environmental cooperation. New York: Columbia University Press.
41.
Longino, H.1990. Science as social knowledge. Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
Mandelbaum, Seymour . 1991. Telling stories. Journal of Planning Education and Research10: 209-214.
43.
McKearnan, Sarah , and Patrick Field. 1999. The Northern Oxford County Coalition: Four Maine towns tackle a public health mystery. In The consensus building handbook. A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement, edited by Lawrence Susskind, Sarah McKearnan and Jennifer Thomas-Larmer, 711-741. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
Nelson, Lynn . 1990. Who knows. From Quine to a feminist empiricism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
45.
Rein, Donald , and Martin Schön. 1994. Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.
Sandercock, Leonie . 1995. Voices from the Borderlands: A mediation on a metaphor. Journal of Planning Education ad Research14: 77-88.
48.
Sandercock, Leonie . 1998. Framing insurgent historiographies for planning. In Making the invisible visible: A multicultural planning history, edited by Leonie Sandercock, 1-33. Berkeley: University of California Press.
49.
Sandercock, Leonie , and Ann Forsyth. 1992. A gender agenda: New directions for planning theory. Journal of the American Planning Association58: 49-59.
50.
Susskind, Lawrence , and Jeffrey Cruickshank. 1987. Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. New York: Basic Books.
51.
Throgmorton, James . 1993. Planning as rhetorical activity. Survey research as a trope in arguments about electric power planning in Chicago. Journal of the American Planning Association55: 334-346.
52.
Verma, Niraj . 1996. Pragmatic rationality and planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research16: 5-14.
53.
Young, Iris . 1996. Communication and the other: Beyond deliberative democracy. In Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political, edited by Sheyla Benhabib. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
