The article explicates the contours of an academic discipline and builds an argument in favor of viewing planning as an evolving discipline. As part of our argument, we discuss the unique historical trajectory of the planning discipline, its emphasis on practice and public scholarship, and how this contrasts to the traditional social sciences. We argue that planning scholars need to reorient toward the discipline’s central organizing concept, Friedmann’s knowledge-action framework, and to engage in an ongoing dialectical process of refinement, revision, and extension. To illustrate this point, we provide an example of how recent scholarly work on collective action and social movement contributes to the terrain of planning thought.
Abers, R.N.2000. Inventing local democracy: Grassroots politics in Brazil . Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
2.
Agrawal, A.2001. Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Development29 (10): 1649-72.
3.
Agrawal, A., and K. Gupta.2005. Decentralization and participation: The governance of common pool resources in Nepal’s Terai. World Development33 (7): 1101-14.
4.
Alvarez, S.E.1990. Engendering democracy in Brazil: Women’s movements in transition politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
Arendt, H.1958. The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
Arnstein, S.R.1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners35 (4): 216-24.
7.
Baland, J.-M., and J.-P. Platteau.1996. Halting degradation of natural resources: Is there a role for rural communities?Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
8.
Beard, V.A.1999. Navigating and creating spaces: An Indonesian community’s struggle for land tenure. Plurimondi1 (2): 127-45.
9.
Beard, V.A.2002. Covert planning for social transformation in Indonesia . Journal of Planning Education and Research22:15-25.
10.
Beard, V.A.2003. Learning radical planning: The power of collective action . Planning Theory2 (1): 13-35.
11.
Beard, V.A.2007. Household contributions to community development in Indonesia . World Development35 (4): 607-25.
12.
Beard, V.A., and A. Dasgupta.2006. Collective action and community-driven development in rural and urban Indonesia. Urban Studies43 (9): 1451-68.
13.
Bromley, D. W.,D. Feeny , M. A. McKean, P. Peters, J. Gilles, R. Oakerson, C. F. Runge , and J. Thomson, eds. 1992. Making the commons work: Theory, practice and policy. San Francisco: ICS Press.
14.
Buechler, S.M.2004. The strange career of strain and breakdown theories of collective action. In The Blackwell companion to social movements , ed. D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, and H. Kriesi , 47-66. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
15.
Castells, M.1983. The city and the grassroots: A cross-cultural theory of urban social movements. Berkeley: University of California Press.
16.
Connerly, C. E., and B. Stiftel , eds. 1995. Teaching planning theory. Special issue, Journal of Planning Education and Research14, no. 3.
17.
Dasgupta, A., and V.A. Beard.2007. Community driven development, collective action and elite capture in Indonesia. Development and Change38 (2): 229-49.
18.
Diani, M., and D. McAdam.2003. Social movements and networks: Relational approaches to collective action. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
19.
Douglass, M., and J. Friedmann.1998. Cities for citizens: Planning and the rise of civil society in a global age. New York: John Wiley.
20.
Ebrahim, A.2003. Accountability in practice: Mechanisms for NGOs. World Development31 (5): 813-29.
21.
Escobar, A., and S. E. Alvarez , eds. 1992. The making of social movements in Latin America: Identity, strategy, and democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview.
22.
Faludi, A.1973. A reader in planning theory. Oxford , UK: Pergamon.
23.
Fiske, D. W., and R. A. Shweder, eds. 1986. Metatheory in social science: Pluralisms and subjectivities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24.
Flyvbjerg, B.1998. Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. Trans. S. Sampson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25.
Forester, J.1989. Planning in the face of power. Berkeley : University of California Press.
26.
Friedmann, J.1973. Retracking America: A theory of transactive planning. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.
27.
Friedmann, J.1982. Good society: A personal account of its struggle with the world of social planning and a dialectical inquiry into the roots of radical practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
28.
Friedmann, J.1987. Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29.
Friedmann, J.1989a. Reviews: I am pleased to react. Journal of Planning Education and Research9 (1): 63-64.
30.
Friedmann, J.1989b. The Latin American barrio movement as a social movement: Contribution to a debate. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research13 (3): 501-10.
31.
Friedmann, J.1994. The utility of non-Euclidean planning: A reply to E. R. Alexander. Journal of the American Planning Association60 (3): 377-79.
32.
Fung, A., and E. O. Wright, eds. 2003. Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. London: Verso.
33.
Garcia, R.B.1993. Changing paradigms of professional practice, education and research in academe: A history of planning education in the United States . PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania.
34.
Gattone, C.F.2006. The social scientist as public intellectual. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
35.
Gibson, C. C., M. A. McKean, and E. Ostrom, eds. 2000. People and forests: Communities, institutions and governance . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36.
Gibson, C.C., E. Ostrom, K. Andersson, and S. Shivakumar.2005. The Samaritan’s dilemma: The political economy of development aid. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
37.
Glazer, N.1974. The schools of the minor professions. Minerva12 (3): 346-64.
38.
Goldstein, H.A., and J. Carmin.2006. Compact, diffuse, or would-be discipline? Assessing cohesion in planning scholarship, 1963-2002. Journal of Planning Education and Research26:66-79.
39.
Goodwin, J., and J. M. Jasper, eds. 2004. Rethinking social movements: Structure, meaning and emotion. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
40.
Grabow, S., and A. Heskin.1973. Foundations for a radical concept of planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners39 (2): 106-14.
41.
Graham, S., and P. Healey.1999. Relational concepts of space place: Issues for planning theory and practice. European Planning Studies7 (5): 623-46.
42.
Grootaert, C.1998. Social capital: The missing link? Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Network Working Paper 3, World Bank, Washington, DC.
43.
Hardin, G.1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science162 (3859): 1243-48.
44.
Harvey, D.2000. Spaces of hope. Berkeley: University of California Press.
45.
Healey, P.2009. The pragmatic tradition in planning thought. Journal of Planning Education and Research28:277-92.
46.
Hirschman, A.O.1984. Getting ahead collectively: Grassroots experiences in Latin America. New York: Pergamon .
47.
Innes, J.E.1995. Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research14:183-89.
48.
Kelley, D. R., ed. 1997. History and the disciplines: The reclassification of knowledge in early modern Europe. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
49.
Kenney, M.R.1998. Remember, Stonewall was a riot: Understanding gay and lesbian experience in the city. In Making the invisible visible: A multicultural planning history, ed. L. Sandercock , 120-32. Berkeley: University of California Press.
50.
Kollock, P.1998. Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology24:183-214.
51.
Lauria, M., and J.A. Wagner.2006. What can we learn from empirical studies of planning theory? A comparative case analysis of extant literature. Journal of Planning Education and Research25:364-81.
52.
Lynch, K.1960. The image of the city. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
53.
Mason, D.R., and V.A. Beard.2008. Community-based planning and poverty alleviation in Oaxaca, Mexico. Journal of Planning Education and Research27:245-60.
54.
McAdam, D., S. Tarrow, and C. Tilly.2001. Dynamics of contention. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
55.
Meyer, D.S.2004. Protest and political opportunities. Annual Review of Sociology30:125-45.
56.
Meyer, D. S.,V. Jenness , and H. Ingram, eds. 2005. Routing the opposition: Social movements, public policy and democracy. Social Movements, Protest and Contention Series, vol. 23. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
57.
Meyer, D. S., N. Whitter , and B. Robnett, eds. 2002. Social movements: Identity, culture and the state. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
58.
Miraftab, F.2004. Public-private partnerships: The Trojan horse of neoliberal development? Journal of Planning Education and Research24:89-101.
59.
Miraftab, F.2009. Insurgent planning: Situating radical planning in the global south. Planning Theory8 (1): 32-51.
60.
Miraftab, F., and S. Wills.2005. Insurgency and spaces of active citizenship: The story of Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign in South Africa. Journal of Planning Education and Research25:200-217.
61.
Myers, D., and T. Banerjee.2005. Longer view: Toward greater heights for planning: Reconciling the differences between profession, practice, and academic field. Journal of the American Planning Association71 (2): 121-29.
62.
Olson, M.1965. The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
63.
Ostrom, E.1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
64.
Ostrom, E.2005. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
65.
Ozawa, C.P., and E.P. Seltzer.1999. Taking our bearings: Mapping a relationship among planning practice, theory, and education. Journal of Planning Education and Research18:257-66.
66.
Pinson, D.2004. Urban planning: An "undisciplined" discipline? Futures36 (4): 503-13.
67.
Posner, R.A.2001. Public intellectuals: A study of decline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
68.
Quiggin, J.1993. Common property, equality and development. World Development21 (7): 1123-38.
69.
Sandercock, L., ed. 1998a. Making the invisible visible: A multicultural planning history. Berkeley: University of California Press.
70.
Sandercock, L.1998b. Towards cosmopolis: Planning for multicultural cities . Chichester, UK: Wiley.
71.
Sandercock, L.2003. Cosmopolis II: Mongrel cities of the 21st century. London: Continuum.
72.
Sandercock, L., and A. Forsyth.1992. Feminist theory and planning theory: The epistemological links. Planning Theory Newsletter7-8:45-49.
73.
Sandler, T.1992. Collective action: Theory and applications. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
74.
Schram, S. F., and B. Caterino, eds. 2006. Making political science matter. New York: New York University Press.
75.
Scott, J.C.1998. Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
76.
Shatkin, G.2000. Obstacles to empowerment: Local politics and civil society in metropolitan Manila, the Philippines. Urban Studies37 (12): 2357-75.
77.
Snow, D. A., S. A. Soule, and H. Kriesi, eds. 2004. The Blackwell companion to social movements. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
78.
Soja, E.1996. Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
79.
Sommer, R.2000. Discipline and field of study: A search for clarification . Journal of Environmental Psychology20 (1): 1-4.
80.
Stein, A.2009. Discipline and publish: Public sociology in an age of professionalization. In Bureaucratic culture and escalating world problems: Advancing the sociological imagination, J.D. Knottnerus and B. Phillips, 156-171. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
81.
Stevens, G.1990. An alliance confirmed: Planning literature and the social sciences. Journal of the American Planning Association56 (3): 341-49.
82.
Stokols, D., K.L. Hall, B.K. Taylor, and R.P. Moser.2008. The science of team science: Overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. American Journal of Preventive Medicine35 (2S): 77-89.
83.
Tarrow, S.G.1989. Democracy and disorder: Protest and politics in Italy 1965-1975. Oxford, UK: Clarendon .
84.
Tarrow, S.G.1998. Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics . 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
85.
Throgmorton, J.A.2003. Planning as persuasive storytelling in a global-scale web of relationships. Planning Theory2 (2): 125-51.
86.
Tilly, C.2004. Social movements, 1768-2004. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
87.
Toulmin, S.E.1972. Human understanding. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.
88.
Vedeld, T.2000. Village politics: Heterogeneity, leadership and collective action. Journal of Development Studies36 (5): 105-34.
89.
Wade, R.1988. Village republics: Economic conditions for collective action in south India. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
90.
Wagner, P., B. Wittrock, and R. Whitley, eds. 1991. Discourses on society: The shaping of the social science disciplines. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
91.
Wildavsky, A.1969. Rescuing policy analysis from PPBS. Public Administration Review29 (2): 189-202.
92.
Wildavsky, A.1973. If planning is everything, maybe it’s nothing. Policy Sciences4 (2): 127-53.
93.
Wildavsky, A.1985. The once and future school of public policy. Public Interest79:25-41.
94.
Yiftachel, O.1999. Planning theory at a crossroad: The third Oxford conference . Journal of Planning Education and Research18:267-69.
