Critical pragmatism provides a line of analysis and imagination that might contribute both to academic planning theory and to engaged planning practices as well. To do so, it must build upon, and develop more politically, Donald Schön’s seminal work on reflective practice. It must help students of planning think critically about outcomes as well as processes, about institutional and process designs, about power and performance. It must resonate experientially with perceptions of change-oriented practitioners facing complex multi-party “problems” characterized by distrust, anger, strategic behavior, poor information, and inequalities of power. Not least of all, a critical pragmatism must—and can—help students of planning reconstruct possibilities where others might initially perceive or presume impossibilities.
ArgyrisCSchönD (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
2.
BernsteinRJ (1983) Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
3.
ChurchmanCW (1972) The Design of Inquiring Systems. New York: Basic Books.
4.
DeweyJ (1927) The Public and Its Problems. Athens, OH: Swallow Press.
5.
FischlerR (2012) Reflective practice. In: SanyalBValeLRosanC (eds) Planning Ideas That Matter. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
FisherRUryW (1983) Getting to Yes. New York: Penguin.
7.
FlyvbjergB (2001) Making Social Science Matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
ForesterJ (1989) Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
9.
ForesterJ (1993) Critical Theory, Public Policy, and Planning Practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
10.
ForesterJ (1999) The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
ForesterJ (2006) Exploring urban practice in a democratizing society: Opportunities, techniques, and challenges. Development South Africa23(5) December.
12.
ForesterJ (2009) Dealing With Differences: Dramas of Mediating Public Disputes. New York: Oxford University Press.
13.
ForesterJ (2011) Interface: Learning from practice in the face of conflict: Integrating technical expertise with participatory planning (Critical commentaries on the practice of planner-architect Laurence Sherman). Planning Theory and Practice12(2).
14.
ForesterJ (2012a) Learning to improve practice: Lessons from practice stories and practitioners’ own discourse analyses (or why only the loons show up). Planning Theory and Practice13(1): 11–26.
15.
ForesterJ (2012b) Learning through conflict. In: GriggsSNorvalAWagenaarH (eds) Democracy, Conflict and Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
ForesterJ (forthcoming) From conflict generation through consensus-building using many of the same skills: A profile of Frank Blechman. In: ForesterJ (ed.) Challenges and Opportunities of Facilitative Leadership in Planning.
17.
FreireP (1970) The Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.
18.
GilliganC (1982) In A Different Voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
HabermasJ (1979) Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston, MA: Beacon.
20.
HarperTSteinSM (1995) Out of the postmodern abyss: Preserving the rationale for liberal planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research14: 233–244.
21.
HealeyP (2009) The pragmatic tradition in planning thought. Journal of Planning Education and Research28(3): 277–292.
22.
HochC (1994) What Planners Do. Chicago, IL: Planner’s Press.
23.
HochC (1996) A pragmatic inquiry about planning and power. In: MandelbaumSMazzaLBurchellR (eds) Explorations in Planning Theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Public Policy.
24.
HochC (2007) Pragmatic communicative action theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research26(3): 272–283.
25.
InnesJBooherD (1999) Consensus building as role playing and bricolage: Toward a theory of collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association65(1): 9–26.
26.
InnesJBooherD (2010) Planning With Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. London: Routledge.
27.
KadlecA (2006) Reconstructing Dewey: The philosophy of critical pragmatism. Polity38(4): 519–542.
28.
KelmanH (1996) Negotiation as interactive problem-solving. International Negotiation1: 99–123.
29.
LawsDForesterJ (2007a) Public policy mediation: From argument to collaboration in policy analysis. In: FischerFMillerGSidneyM (eds) Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
30.
LawsDForesterJ (2007b) Learning in practice: Public policy mediation. Critical Policy Analysis1(4): 342–370.
31.
MargerumR (2011) Beyond Consensus: Improving Collaborative Planning and Management. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
NussbaumM (1990) Love’s Knowledge. New York: Oxford.
33.
ReardonKWelchJKreiswirthBForesterJ (1993) Participatory action research from the inside: A profile of Ken Reardon’s community development practice in East St. Louis. The American Sociologist24(1) Spring: 69–91.
34.
SandercockL (2003) Dreaming the sustainable city: Organizing hope, negotiating fear, mediating memory. In: EcksteinBThrogmortonJ (eds) Story and Sustainability. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp.42–164.
35.
SchönD (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think In Action. New York: Basic Books.
36.
SchönDReinM (1994) Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books.
37.
UmemotoK (2001) Walking in another’s shoes: Epistemological challenges in participatory planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research21: 17–31.
38.
VermaN (1996) Pragmatic rationality and planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research16(1): 5–14.
39.
WagenaarH (2011a) Meaning in Action: Interpretation and Dialogue in Policy Analysis. New York: ME Sharpe.
40.
WagenaarH (2011b) “A beckon to the makings, workings and doings of human beings”: The critical pragmatism of John Forester. Public Administration ReviewMarch–April: 293–298.
41.
YankelovichD (2001) The Magic of Dialogue. NY: Touchstone.
