The curriculum for graduate education in planning has been largely dictated by a conception of the planner's role as a technical advisor to decisionmakers. The rational planning model has shaped the construction of the core curriculum. Recent work by planning theorists suggests that the planner does more than simply provide technical advice, but serves to facilitate communications in critical ways. This article reports the results of a survey of senior planning professionals regarding the skills and competencies they seek in entry-level planners. The results provide strong support for communicative planning theories and suggest a recasting of traditional conceptions of what constitutes core graduate planning curricula.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abbott, C., D. Howe, and S. Adler.1994Planning the Oregon Way: A Twenty-year Evaluation. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University Press.
2.
American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP).1992. 1992 Job Analysis Survey. Washington, D.C.
3.
Apostolides, V., and D.J. Allor, moderators. 1996. Assessing specialization and skills demand. Panel Presentation at the 1996 American Planning Association National Planning Conference, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
4.
Baum, H.1997a. Social science, social work, and surgery: Teaching what students need to practice planning. Journal of the American Planning Association63:179-188.
5.
Baum, H.1997b. Teaching practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research17:21-29.
6.
Branch, M.C.1993. Are we really teaching planning? Journal of Planning Education and Research12:249-251
7.
Carter, E.J.1992. Toward a core body of knowledge: A new curriculum for city and regional planners. Journal of Planning Education and Research11:160-163
8.
Christensen, K.S.1993. Teaching savvy. Journal of Planning Education and Research12:202-212.
9.
Contant, C.K., and D.J. Forkenbrock .1986. Planning methods: What can and what should we teach. Journal of Planning Education and Research6:10-21.
10.
Dandekar, H.C., and G.R. Clark.1992. Integrating communication skills and planning techniques. Journal of Planning Education and Research11:141-150.
11.
Davidoff, P.1965. Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners31:331-338.
12.
Davis, A.1996. Oregonians Discuss Higher Education : Summary Report . Oregon State System of Higher Education, Portland, Oregon.
13.
Diamond, H.L., and P.F. Noonan.1996. Land Use in America. Washington, D.C. : Island Press.
14.
Forester, J.1989. Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press.
15.
Friedmann, J.1996a. The core curriculum in planning revisited. Journal of Planning Education and Research15:89-104.
16.
Friedmann, J.1996b. Two centuries of planning theory: An overview . In Explorations in Planning Theory, eds. S. Mandelbaum, L. Mazza, and R. W. Burchell, 10-29. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University .
17.
Friedmann, J., and C. Kuester.1994. Comment. Planning education for the late 20th century: An initial inquiry. Journal of Planning Education and Research14:55-67.
18.
Harris, B.1991A view of planning and planning education. Journal of Planning Education and Research11:151-152.
Hoch, C.1994. What Planners Do: Politics, Power and Persuasion . Chicago, Ill.: Planners Press .
21.
Innes, J.1996. Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association62:460-472.
22.
Kaufman, S., and R. Simons.1995. Quantitative and research methods in planning: Are schools teaching what practitioners practice? Journal of Planning Education and Research15:17-34.
23.
Knaap, G., and A.C. Nelson.1992. The Regulated Landscape: Lessons on State Land Use Planning from Oregon. Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
24.
Lindblom, C.1959. The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review19:79- 88.
25.
Lusk, P., and M. Kantrowitz.1990. Teaching students to become effective planners through communication: A planning communications studio. Journal of Planning Education and Research10:55-59.
26.
Mandelbaum, S., L. Mazza , and R.W. Burchell, eds. 1996. Explorations in Planning Theory. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University.
27.
Oregon Business Council.1996. Gaining Competitive Advantage: The Need for Customer-Driven Higher Education, A Business Perspective. Portland, Oregon.
28.
Perloff, H.S.1957. Education for Planning City, State, and RegionalBaltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press .
29.
Rabinowitz, F.1969. City Politics and PlanningNew York : Atherton Press.
