Why are many (early-career) urban academics expressing frustration over the division between the values scholars espouse and how academic work contributes to the institutional changes it promotes? Building on the premise that “critique” (exposing wrongs) and “vision” (advocating for new, enlightened ways of acting) has remained a prominent strategy in urban studies, this commentary reflects on the limits of relying on “critique and vision” alone as a means of pushing for change. As our contexts are more nuanced than simply fault-finding and advocating for more political space, this text considers the capacity of urban scholarship to support different planning possibilities.
AllmendingerPhilHaughtonGraham. 2012. “Post-Political Spatial Planning in England: A Crisis of Consensus?”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers37 (1): 89–103. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2011.00468.x.
2.
AllmendingerPhilipTewdwr-JonesMark. 2002. “The Communicative Turn in Urban Planning: Unravelling Paradigmatic, Imperialistic and Moralistic Dimensions.” Space and Polity6 (1): 5–24. doi:10.1080/13562570220137871.
3.
AnackerKatrien B.2024. “The Evolution of the Four Eras of Urban Planning Education in the United States.” Journal of Planning Education and Research44 (4): 2294–2304. doi:10.1177/0739456X231177436.
4.
AndersonAndrea. 2020. The Community Builder’s Approach to Theory of Change: A Practical Guide to Theory Development. New York: The Aspen Institute.
5.
AndersonColin Ray. 2020. “Confronting the Institutional, Interpersonal and Internalized Challenges of Performing Critical Public Scholarship.” ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies19 (1): 270–302. doi:10.14288/acme.v19i1.1786.
6.
AtiaMonaDohertyGrace. 2021. “On Doing Relational Research: Participatory Mapping as an Emergent Research Process.” Antipode53 (4): 953–74. doi:10.1111/anti.12712.
7.
BarryJaniceNovacevskiMattBoycoMorganLegacyCrystal. 2025. “Planners’ Changing Relationships with Participation: The Impact of New Training and Certification Schemes.” Journal of Planning Education and Research45 (3): 637–346. doi:10.1177/0739456X241242707.
8.
BellDerrick. 1980. “Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest-Convergence Dilemma.” Harvard Law Review93 (3): 518–33. doi:10.2307/1340546.
9.
BernsteinRichard J.1983. Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis. Chicago: University of Pennsylvania Press.
10.
BevinsVincent. 2023. If We Burn: The Mass Protest Decade and the Missing Revolution. New York: PublicAffairs.
11.
BlytheJessicaSilverJenniferEvansLouisaArmitageDerekBennettNathan J.MooreMichele-leeMorrisonTiffany H.BrownKatrina. 2018. “The Dark Side of Transformation: Latent Risks in Contemporary Sustainability Discourse.” Antipode50 (5): 1206–23. doi:10.1111/anti.12405.
12.
BoyerErnest L.1990. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
13.
BrownTrent. 2016. “Sustainability as Empty Signifier: Its Rise, Fall, and Radical Potential.” Antipode48 (1): 115–33. doi:10.1111/anti.12164.
14.
DavidCoghlanBrydon-MillerMary, eds. 2014. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Action Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
15.
ColemanMatKocherAustin. 2019. “Rethinking the ‘Gold Standard’ of Racial Profiling: §287(g), Secure Communities and Racially Discrepant Police Power.” American Behavioral Scientist63 (9): 1185–1220. doi:10.1177/0002764219835275.
16.
CrenshawKimberle. 1989. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum1:8.
17.
DavidoffPaul. 1965. “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners31 (4): 331–38. doi:10.1080/01944366508978187.
18.
de Sousa SantosBoaventura. 2015. Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide. New York: Routledge.
19.
de Sousa SantosBoaventura. 2016. “Epistemologies of the South and the future.” From the European South, A Transdisciplinary Journal of Postcolonial Humanities1:17–29. http://europeansouth.postcolonialitalia.it.
20.
DzudzekIrisLindnerPeter. 2013. “Performing the Creative-Economy Script: Contradicting Urban Rationalities at Work.” Regional Studies49 (3): 388–403. doi:10.1080/00343404.2013.847272.
21.
ElwoodSarah. 2022. “Toward a Fourth Generation Critical GIS: Extraordinary Politics.” ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies21 (4): 436–47. doi:10.14288/acme.v21i4.1968.
22.
GualiniEnrico, ed. 2015. Planning and Conflict: Critical Perspectives on Contentious Urban Developments. New York: Routledge.
23.
EspositoRoberto. 2021. Instituting thought: Three Paradigms of Political Ontology. Translated by EpsteinMark William. Medford: Polity Press.
24.
EspositoRoberto. 2022. Institution. Translated by HanafiZakiya. Medford: Polity Press.
25.
FlyvbjergBrent. 1998. Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26.
ForesterJohn. 2020. “Five Generations of Theory–Practice Tensions: Enriching Socio-Ecological Practice Research.” Socio-ecological Practice Research2:111–19. doi:10.1007/s42532-019-00033-3.
27.
ForesterJohn. 2022. “Options Analysis as Context-Responsiveness in Practice: Integrating Diagnosis, Expertise, and Negotiation (Refining Communicative Planning and Critical Pragmatism).” Planning Theory & Practice23 (5): 663–80. doi:10.1080/14649357.2022.2133158.
28.
GunderMichael. 2006. “Sustainability: Planning’s Saving Grace or Road to Perdition?”Journal of Planning Education and Research26 (2): 208–21. doi:10.1177/0739456X06289359.
29.
HealeyPatsy. 1993. “Planning Through Debate: The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory.” In The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, edited by FischerFrankForesterJohn, 233–53. London: UCL Press.
30.
HealeyPatsy. 2009. “The Pragmatic Tradition in Planning Thought.” Journal of Planning Education and Research28:277–92. doi:10.1177/0739456X08325175.
31.
HoustonSerinTrudeauDan. 2023. “Rethinking Translation: Emergent, Geographic, and Transformative.” ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies22 (1): 842–59. doi:10.14288/acme.v22i1.2264.
32.
HuxleyMargoYiftachelOren. 2000. “New Paradigm or Old Myopia? Unsettling the Communicative Turn in Planning Theory.” Journal of Planning Education and Research19 (4): 333–42. doi:10.1177/0739456X0001900402,
33.
IllichIvan. 1977. “Disabling Professions.” In Ideas in Progress: Disabling Professions. written by IllichIvanZolaIrvingMcKnightJohnCaplanJohnathanShaikenHarley, 11–40. Great Britain: Redwood Burn Limited.
34.
JacksonAprilGarcia-ZambranaIvisGreenleeAndrew J.LeeC. AujeanChrisingerBenjamin. 2018. “All Talk No Walk: Student Perceptions on Integration of Diversity and Practice in Planning Programs.” Planning Practice & Research33 (5): 574–95. doi:10.1080/02697459.2018.1548207.
35.
JohnsonP. A.CorbettJ. M.GoreC.RobinsonP.AllenP.SieberR.2015. “A Web of Expectations: Evolving Relationships in Community Participatory Geoweb Projects.” ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies14 (3): 827–48. doi:10.14288/acme.v14i3.1235.
36.
Lambert-PenningtonKatherineSaijaLaura. 2020. “To Do and Know Something Together: Overcoming the Obstacles and Challenges of Action-Research in Making Better Urban Worlds.” Tracce Urbane4:8. doi:10.13133/2532-6562_4.8.17278.
37.
LegacyCrystal. 2017. “Is There a Crisis of Participatory Planning?”Planning Theory16 (4): 425–42. doi:10.1177/1473095216667433.
38.
Li Destri NicosiaGuiliaSaijaLaura. 2023. “Planning as an Instituting Process. Overcoming Agamben’s Despair Using Esposito’s Political Ontology.” Planning Theory24 (1): 3–20. doi:10.1177/14730952231209755.
39.
LimbMarkFeeneyBrian. 2025. “Great in Theory, but . . .: Planner’s Perceptions of Queensland’s Performance-Based System.” Journal of Planning Education and Research45 (3): 500–511. doi:10.1177/0739456X241228265.
40.
McFarlaneColin. 2011. Learning the City: Knowledge and Translocal Assemblage. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
41.
MouffeChantal. 1993. The Return of the Political. London and New York: Verso Books.
42.
MouffeChantal. 2005. On the Political. London and New York: Routledge.
43.
NoysBenjamin. 2010. The Persistence of the Negative: A Critique of Contemporary Continental Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
44.
O’BrienKaren. 2012. “Global Environmental Change III: Closing the Gap between Knowledge and Action.” Progress in Human Geography37 (4): 587–96. doi:10.1177/0309132512469589.
PuwarNirmal. 2020. “Puzzlement of a déjà vu: Illuminaries of the Global South.” The Sociological Review68 (3): 540–56. doi:10.1177/0038026119890254.
47.
RittelHorst W. J.WebberMelvin M.1973. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy Sciences4 (2): 155–69. doi:10.1007/BF01405730.
48.
SaijaLaura. 2014. “Writing about Engaged Scholarship: Misunderstandings and the Meaning of ‘Quality’ in Action Research Publications.” Planning Theory & Practice15 (2): 187–201.” doi:10.1080/14649357.2014.904922.
49.
SaijaLauraPappalardoGuisy. 2021. “From Enabling People to Enabling Institutions: A National Policy Suggestion for Inner Areas Coming from An Action-Research Experience.” In International Symposium: New Metropolitan Perspectives, edited by Carmelina Bevilacqua, Francesco Calabrò, & Lucia Della Spina, 125–34. Cham: Springer.
50.
SaijaLauraPappalardoGuisy. 2022. “An Argument for Action Research-Inspired Participatory Mapping.” Journal of Planning Education and Research42 (3): 375–85. doi:10.1177/0739456X18817090.
51.
Sevilla-BuitragoÁlvaro. 2022. Against the Commons: A Radical History of Urban Planning. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
52.
SmithLinda Tuhiwai. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London and New York: Zed Books Ltd.
53.
StoneDeborah. 1988. Policy Paradox and Political Reason. Glenview: Scott Foresman & Co.
54.
SwyngedouwEric. 2009. “The Antinomies of the Postpolitical City: In Search of a Democratic Politics of Environmental Production.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research33 (3): 601–20. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2009.00859.x.
55.
SwyngedouwEric. 2014. “Where is the Political? Insurgent Mobilisations and the Incipient ‘Return of the Political.’”Space and Polity18 (2): 122–36. doi:10.1080/13562576.2013.879774.
56.
TaitMalcolmJensenOle. 2007. “Travelling Ideas, Power and Place: The Cases of Urban Villages and Business Improvement Districts.” International Planning Studies12 (2): 107–27. doi:10.1080/13563470701453778.
57.
ToldiAubrey. 2025. “Minding the Gap: Questioning Our Strategy to Bridge Urban Theory and Practice.” Territorio108/109:166–72. doi:10.3280/TR2024-108015.
58.
TuckEve. 2009a. “Suspending Damage: A Letter to Communities.” Harvard Educational Review79 (3): 409–27. doi:10.17763/haer.79.3.n0016675661t3n15.
59.
TuckEve. 2009b. “Re-Visioning Action: Participatory Action Research and Indigenous Theories of Change.” Urban Review41:47–65. doi:10.1007/s11256-008-0094-x.
60.
VermaNiraj. 1996. “Pragmatic Rationality and Planning Theory.” Journal of Planning Education and Research16 (1): 5–14. doi:10.1177/0739456X9601600102.
61.
ViriasovaInna. 2018. At the Limits of the Political: Affect, Life, Things. London and New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
62.
WestmanLindaBrotoVanesa Castán. 2022. “Urban Transformations to Keep All the Same: The Power of Ivy Discourses.” Antipode54 (4): 1320–43. doi:10.1111/anti.12820.
63.
WilmottClancy. 2020. Mobile Mapping: Space, Cartography and the Digital. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
64.
WolfePatrick. 1994. “Nation and MiscegeNation: Discursive Continuity in the Post-Mabo Era.” Social Analysis: The International Journal of Social and Cultural Practice36 (1): 93–152. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23171805.
65.
ZollDeidreVasudevanRakshaGaugerBriGelbardSarahKayananCarla MariaMahJulieReyesAriadna. 2025. “Notes from the Trenches: Reflections from Recent PhD Graduates on Navigating the Academy.” Journal of Planning Education and Research45 (1): 5–13. doi:10.1177/0739456X231195729.
