This paper engages with the ‘material turn’ in planning to interpret the epistemological potential of incorporating design methods into communicative planning. It argues that user-centred design methods can help overcome persistent shortcomings of the communicative approach by opening up more inclusive and action-oriented pathways for collective reasoning, while addressing structural injustices implicit in the assumption of communicative rationality. Using a documentary research method, the paper analyses five school-based planning projects in Seoul, South Korea. After discussing how design-driven deliberations reshaped communicative rationality, it conceptualises ‘empathy’, ‘plurality’, and ‘procedural justice’ as epistemo-ethical capacities that design methods can introduce into communicative practice, and emphasises how their exploratory, iterative, and lateral structures—unlike the serial unfolding typical of argumentation—can foster collective thinking and spatio-temporal rhythms that are conducive to what Habermas sought through his notion of intersubjective understanding.
AmatiMFreestoneRRobertsonS (2017) “Learning the city”: Patrick Geddes, exhibitions, and communicating planning ideas. Landscape and Urban Planning166: 97–105.
2.
BarabasJ (2004) How deliberation affects policy opinions. American Political Science Review98(4): 687–701.
3.
BeauregardRA (2012) Planning with things. Journal of Planning Education and Research32(2): 182–190.
4.
BeauregardRA (2015) Planning Matter. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
5.
BeccariMNOliveiraTL (2011) A philosophical approach about user experience methodology. In: MarcusA (ed) Design, User Experience, and Usability. Theory, Methods, Tools and Practice. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 13–22.
6.
BoelensL (2010) Theorizing practice and practising theory: Outlines for an actor-relational-approach in planning. Planning Theory9(1): 28–62.
7.
BucheckerMHunzikerMKienastF (2003) Participatory landscape development: Overcoming social barriers to public involvement. Landscape and Urban Planning64(1): 29–46.
8.
CaliskanO (2012) Design thinking in urbanism: Learning from the designers. Urban Design International17(4): 272–296.
9.
ChoiJ-WChungS-J (2017) A design education program for children's participation design: Focused on Eogong 6ho children’s park in Suwon. Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture45(5): 29–41.
10.
CrossN (1982) Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies3(4): 221–227.
11.
De RooGHillierJVan WezemaelJ (2012) Complexity and Planning: Systems, Assemblages and Simulations. Abingdon, Oxon: Ashgate Publishing.
12.
Del GaudioC (2018) Rethinking the designer's role in the collective re-imagination of societies: A necessary reinterpretation of design for social innovation. In: DevischOHuybrechtsLDe RidderR (eds) Participatory Design Theory: Using Technology and Social Media to Foster Civic Engagement. 1st ed.Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, pp.195–210.
13.
DeleuzeG (1992) Postscript on the societies of control. October59: 3–7.
14.
DoakJKaradimitriouN (2007) (Re)development, complexity and networks: A framework for research. Urban Studies44(2): 209–229.
EscobarA (2018) Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds. Durham: Duke University Press.
17.
FainsteinSS (2000) New directions in planning theory. Urban Affairs Review35(4): 451–478.
18.
FariasI (2009) Introduction: Decentring the object of urban studies. In: FariasIBenderT (eds) Urban Assemblages: How Actor-Network Theory Changes Urban Studies. London: Routledge, pp.1–24.
19.
FischerF (2016) Participatory governance: From theory to practice. In: FainsteinSSCampbellS (eds) Readings in Planning Theory. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, pp.348–362.
20.
ForesterJ (1994) Bridging interests and community: Advocacy planning and the challenges of deliberative democracy. Journal of the American Planning Association60(2): 153–158.
21.
ForesterJ (1999) The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Mit Press.
22.
FriedmannJ (1987) Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
23.
GobsterPHXiangW-N (2012) A revised aims and scope for Landscape and Urban Planning: An international journal of landscape science, planning and design. Landscape and Urban Planning106(4): 289–292.
24.
GunderM (2011) Commentary: Is urban design still urban planning? An exploration and response. Journal of Planning Education and Research31(2): 184–195.
25.
HabermasJ (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action. Boston: Beacon Press.
26.
HarrisonP (2014) Making planning theory real. Planning Theory13(1): 65–81.
27.
HealeyP (1992) Planning through debate: The communicative turn in planning theory. Town Planning Review63(2): 143–162.
HealeyP (2006) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
30.
HillierJ (2003) Fighting over the forests: Environmental conflict and decision-making capacity in forest planning processes. Australian Geographical Studies41(3): 251–269.
31.
HillierJ (2005) Straddling the post-structuralist abyss: Between transcendence and immanence?Planning Theory4(3): 271–299.
32.
HillierJ (2012) Baroque complexity: 'If things were simple, word would have gotten round' In: DeRoo GHillierJVan WezemaelJ (eds) Complexity and Planning: Systems, Assemblages and Simulations. 1st ed.Abingdon, Oxon: Ashgate Publishing, pp.37–73.
33.
HochC (1984) Doing good and being right. The pragmatic connection in planning theory. Journal of the American Planning Association50(3): 335–345.
34.
HuxleyM (2000) The limits to communicative planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research19(4): 369–377.
35.
InnesJE (1996) Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association62(4): 460–472.
36.
InnesJEBooherDE (2015) A turning point for planning theory? Overcoming dividing discourses. Planning Theory14(2): 195–213.
37.
InnesJEBooherDE (2016) Collaborative rationality as a strategy for working with wicked problems. Landscape and Urban Planning154: 8–10.
38.
InnesJEBooherDE (2018) Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. Abingdon: Routledge.
39.
KamalipourHPeimaniN (2015) Assemblage thinking and the city: Implications for urban studies. Current Urban Studies3: 402–408.
40.
KumarALodhaDMahalingamA, et al. (2016) Using ‘design thinking’ to enhance urban re-development: A case study from India. Engineering Project Organization Journal6(2–4): 155–165.
41.
LatourB (2005) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42.
LegacyC (2017) Is there a crisis of participatory planning?Planning Theory16(4): 425–442.
43.
MasseyDB (2005) For Space. Los Angeles: Sage.
44.
MattilaH (2020) Habermas revisited: Resurrecting the contested roots of communicative planning theory. Progress in Planning141: 100431.
45.
MensonenAHällströmAA (2020) Designing cities? The use of design thinking in urban planning in Finland. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science.
46.
PortugaliJStolkE (2014) A SIRN view on design thinking—An urban design perspective. Environment and Planning B: Planning & Design. 41(5): 829–846.
47.
RiosM (2008) Envisioning citizenship: Toward a polity approach in urban design. Journal of Urban Design13(2): 213–229.
48.
RydinY (2010) Actor-network theory and planning theory: A response to Boelens. Planning Theory9(3): 265–268.
49.
RydinY (2012) Using actor-network theory to understand planning practice: Exploring relationships between actants in regulating low-carbon commercial development. Planning Theory12(1): 23–45.
50.
RydinY (2014) The challenges of the “material turn” for planning studies. Planning Theory & Practice15(4): 590–595.
51.
Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education (2023) White Paper on Spatial Design Innovation: Schools, Filled with Beautiful Dreams.
52.
SilverHScottAKazepovY (2010) Participation in urban contention and deliberation. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research34(3): 453–477.
53.
SimonS (2023) The role of design thinking to promote a sustainability transition within participatory urban governance: Insights from urban agriculture initiatives in Lisbon. Urban Governance3(3): 189–199.
54.
StilesR (1994) Landscape theory: A missing link between landscape planning and landscape design?Landscape and Urban Planning30(3): 139–149.
55.
TalenE (2006) Design that enables diversity: The complications of a planning ideal. Journal of Planning Literature20(3): 233–249.
56.
TeliMMenendez-BlancoM (2018) Design initiatives in public spaces: Eight interpretative lenses. In: DevischOHuybrechtsLDe RidderR (eds) Participatory Design Theory: Using Technology and Social Media to Foster Civic Engagement. 1st ed.Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, pp.71–86.
57.
TörnrothSWikberg NilssonÅLucianiA (2022) Design thinking for the everyday aestheticisation of urban renewable energy. Design Studies79: 101096.
58.
Van AsscheKBeunenRDuineveldM, et al. (2016) Co-evolutions of planning and design: Risks and benefits of design perspectives in planning systems. In: FainsteinSSCampbellS (eds) Readings in Planning Theory. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp.51–74.
59.
van DijkT (2021) What collaborative planning practices lack and the design cycle can offer: Back to the drawing table. Planning Theory20(1): 6–27.
60.
VasudevanRNovoaE M (2022) Pluriversal planning scholarship: Embracing multiplicity and situated knowledges in community-based approaches. Planning Theory21(1): 77–100.
61.
von HaarenCWarren-KretzschmarBMilosC, et al. (2014) Opportunities for design approaches in landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning130(1): 159–170.
62.
YoungIM (2000) Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
