Commentary: Alternative Cultures in Planning Research—From Extending Scientific Frontiers to Exploring Enduring Questions

Abstract

As the planning academy has grown and evolved, it has developed different ways of doing planning research. People may (a) work at the scientific frontier, (b) investigate issues of practical relevance, (c) reflect on the implications of practice, or (d) try to answer the enduring questions of planning. These are important differences. Different cultures represent varying ideas about what constitutes an important or significant contribution to the field of planning.

Keywords

planning education research methods research culture

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alexander

E. R.

2001. What do planners need to know? Journal of Planning Education and Research 20 (3): 376-80.

Barnes

2004. Placing ideas: genius loci, heterotopia and geography’s quantitative revolution. Progress in Human Geography 28 (5): 565-95.

Beard

Basolo

2009. Moving beyond crisis, crossroads, and the abyss in the disciplinary formation of planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research 29: 233-42.

Beauregard

2001. The multiplicities of planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research 20: 437-39.

Becher

Trowler

P. R.

2001. Academic tribes and territories. 2nd ed. Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Birch

2001. Practitioners and the art of planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research 20 (4): 407-22.

Boyer

1990. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Menlo Park, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Checkoway

1998. Professionally related public service as applied scholarship. Journal of Planning Education and Research 17 (4): 358-60.

Diamond

2002. Defining scholarship for the twenty-first century. In Scholarship in the postmodern era, edited by Zahorski

Kenneth

. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

10.

Doan

Higgins

2011. The demise of queer space? Resurgent gentrification and the assimilation of LGBT neighborhoods. Journal of Planning Education and Research 31: 6-25.

11.

Donnison

1980. The good city: A study of urban development policy in Britain. London: Heinemann.

12.

DuToit

J. L.

2010. A typology of designs for social research in the built environment. Dissertation presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Social Science Methods) at the University of Stellenbosch.

13.

Edwards

Bates

2011. Planning’s core curriculum: knowledge, practice, and implementation. Journal of Planning Education and Research 31: 172-83.

14.

Forsyth

Crewe

2006. Research in environmental design: Definitions and limits. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 23 (2): 160-75.

15.

Frank

2002. Rethinking planning theory for a master’s-level curriculum. Journal of Planning Education and Research 21: 323-30.

16.

Goldstein

Carmin

2006. Compact, diffuse, or would-be discipline? Assessing cohesion in planning scholarship, 1963-2002. Journal of Planning Education and Research 26: 66-79.

17.

Goldstein

Maier

2010. The use and valuation of journals in planning scholarship: Peer assessment versus impact factors. Journal of Planning Education and Research 30 (1): 66-75.

18.

Grengs

Levine

Shen

Q. Y.

2010. Intermetropolitan comparison of transportation accessibility: Sorting out mobility and proximity in San Francisco and Washington, D.C. Journal of Planning Education and Research 29 (4): 427-43.

19.

Groat

Wang

2002. Architectural research methods. New York: John Wiley.

20.

Guhathakurta

Gober

2010. Residential land use, the urban heat island, and water use in Phoenix: a path analysis. Journal of Planning Education and Research 30: 40-51.

21.

Hack

1984. Research for urban design. In Architectural research, edited by Snyder

James

. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

22.

Hirschman

A. O.

1970. The search for paradigms as a hindrance to understanding. World Politics 22 (3): 329-43.

23.

Hopkins

(2001). Planning as science. Journal of Planning Education and Research 20 (4): 399-406.

24.

Jacobs

2011. The good city: Reflections and imaginations. New York: Routledge.

25.

Krumholz

Forester

1990. Making equity planning work. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

26.

Kuhn

1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

27.

Latour

1981. Insiders and outsiders in the sociology of science; or, how can we foster agnosticism. Knowledge and Society 3: 199-216.

28.

Lynch

1984. Good city form. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

29.

Megill

1987. Provocation on belief: Part 4. Social Epistemology 1 (1): 106-8.

30.

Milroy

B. M.

2009. Planning as a discipline or a field of practice? Journal of Planning Education and Research 29: 243-44.

31.

Muller

Schulte

2011. Governing wildfire risks: What shapes county hazard mitigation programs? Journal of Planning Education and Research 31: 60-73.

32.

Myers

2009. Reconsidering planning practice and social theory in our disciplinary formation. Journal of Planning Education and Research 29: 245-46.

33.

Myers

Kitsuse

2000. Constructing the future in planning: A survey of theories and tools. Journal of Planning Education and Research 19: 221-31.

34.

NEH (National Endowment for the Humanities). 2010. Enduring questions (web page). http://www.neh.gov/grants/guidelines/EnduringQuestions.html.

35.

Punter

Campbell

2009. Reflections on the 2008 United Kingdom Research Assessment Exercise for Town and Country Planning and loosely associated disciplines. Town Planning Review 80 (1): 31-55.

36.

Ragin

C. C.

1994. Constructing social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

37.

Raja

Yin

Roemmich

Epstein

Yaday

Ticoalu

A. B.

2010. Food environment, built environment, and women’s BMI: Evidence from Erie County, New York. Journal of Planning Education and Research 29: 444-60.

38.

Rayer

Smith

S. K.

2010. Factors affecting the accuracy of subcounty population forecasts. Journal of Planning Education and Research 30: 147-61.

39.

Rice

R. E.

2002. Beyond scholarship reconsidered: Toward an enlarged vision of the scholarly work of faculty members. In Scholarship in the postmodern era, edited by Zahorski

Kenneth

. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

40.

Salet

Boer

2011. Comparing the use and valuation of journals between U.S. and European planning scholars. Journal of Planning Education and Research 31 (1): 95-97.

41.

Siemiatycki

2012. The role of the planning scholar: Research, conflict, and social change. Journal of Planning Education and Research 32 (2): 147-59.

42.

Stiftel

Forsyth

Dalton

Steiner

2009. Assessing planning school performance: multiple paths, multiple measures. Journal of Planning Education and Research 28: 323-35.

43.

Swales

2004. Research genres. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

44.

Sweet

E. L.

Chakars

2010. Identity, culture, land, and language: stories of insurgent planning in the Republic of Buryatia, Russia. Journal of Planning Education and Research 30: 198-209.

45.

Thrift

N. J.

1999. Steps to an ecology of place. In Human geography today, edited by Massey

Allen

Sarre

Cambridge: Polity.

46.

Toulmin

1972. Human understanding. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

47.

Winkler

2011. Retracking Johannesburg: Spaces for participation and policy making. Journal of Planning Education and Research 31: 258-71.