Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Planning Education and Research
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
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Beauregard, R. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Writing the Planner

Robert A. Beauregard

Milano Graduate School of Management and Urban Policy at the New Schoolfor Social Research in New York City beauregr{at}newschool.edu

Planning theories are theories of action. Consequently, theorists are compelled not just to specify the activities that comprise practice, but also to write the planner who will carry out these actions. That is, they must address the identity of their planners. This paper explores Leonie Sandercock's postmodernism and John Forester's communicative action in search of how identity is written and integrated into their respective arguments. The search leads to a reconsideration of three dilemmas in planning theory: the tension between redistribution and recognition, the relative importance of consciousness and consequence, and the interaction of interpersonal relations and institutional structures.

Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 18, No. 2, 93-101 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X9801800201
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of Planning Education and ResearchHome page
P. Healey
The Pragmatic Tradition in Planning Thought
Journal of Planning Education and Research, March 1, 2009; 28(3): 277 - 292.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Planning Education and ResearchHome page
A. Chettiparamb
Bottom-Up Planning and the Future of Planning Education in India
Journal of Planning Education and Research, December 1, 2006; 26(2): 185 - 194.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Planning Education and ResearchHome page
H. A. Goldstein and J. Carmin
Compact, Diffuse, or Would-be Discipline?: Assessing Cohesion in Planning Scholarship, 1963-2002
Journal of Planning Education and Research, September 1, 2006; 26(1): 66 - 79.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 COMMUNITY DEV JHome page
Z. Kotval
The link between community development practice and theory: intuitive or irrelevant? A case study of New Britain, Connecticut
Community Dev. J., January 1, 2006; 41(1): 75 - 88.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Planning Education and ResearchHome page
J. Carp
Wit, Style, and Substance: How Planners Shape Public Participation
Journal of Planning Education and Research, March 1, 2004; 23(3): 242 - 254.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Planning Education and ResearchHome page
R. A. Beauregard
The Multiplicities of Planning
Journal of Planning Education and Research, June 1, 2001; 20(4): 437 - 439.
[PDF]