Journal of Planning Education and Research

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kaufman, S.
Right arrow Articles by Simons, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 15, No. 1, 17-33 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X9501500102

Quantitative and Research Methods in Planning: Are Schools Teaching What Practitioners Practice?

Sanda Kaufman

Robert Simons

This paper offers a framework for reexamining the set of skills and techniques included in the quantitative and research methods curricula of American graduate planning programs. These offerings, viewed as the supply of skills, are compared to the demand—skills and techniques used by U.S. planning practitioners. The analysis explores the match between supply, current demand, and skills and techniques practitioners claim they intend to use in the future. Results of the analysis are linked with 1986 work by Contant and Forkenbrock. The quantitative curricular offerings of planning programs are found to be relatively unresponsive to current and future practitioner demand for skills. Directions for possible curriculum changes are suggested.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Planning Education and ResearchHome page
J. Anthony and D. J. Forkenbrock
Land Use Law in Planning: Practice and Pedagogy
Journal of Planning Education and Research, September 1, 2006; 26(1): 80 - 91.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Planning Education and ResearchHome page
R. G. Mahayni, T. W Sanchez, and E. D. Kelly
Teaching Planning Methods Through Modules
Journal of Planning Education and Research, June 1, 1999; 18(4): 353 - 360.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Planning Education and ResearchHome page
C. P. Ozawa and E. P. Seltzer
Taking Our Bearings: Mapping a Relationship Among Planning Practice, Theory, and Education
Journal of Planning Education and Research, March 1, 1999; 18(3): 257 - 266.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Planning Education and ResearchHome page
J. Gaber and S. L. Gaber
Utilizing Mixed-Method Research Designs in Planning: The Case of 14th Street, New York City
Journal of Planning Education and Research, December 1, 1997; 17(2): 95 - 103.
[Abstract]


Home page
Journal of Planning Education and ResearchHome page
D. Garr
How Much For Housing? Cautionary Indications on The State of Shelter Concerns in Planning Education
Journal of Planning Education and Research, December 1, 1997; 17(2): 178 - 181.



Home page
Journal of Planning Education and ResearchHome page
H. S. Baum
Teaching Practice
Journal of Planning Education and Research, September 1, 1997; 17(1): 21 - 29.
[Abstract]


Home page
Journal of Planning Education and ResearchHome page
A.-M. Esnard and E. B. MacDougall
Common Ground for Integrating Planning Theory and GIS Topics
Journal of Planning Education and Research, September 1, 1997; 17(1): 55 - 62.
[Abstract]