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
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 Abram, S. A.
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. 19, No. 4, 351-357 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X0001900404
© 2000 Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning

Planning the Public: Some Comments on Empirical Problems for Planning Theory

Simone A. Abram

Depaitmnent of Town and Regional Planning, University of Sheffield; s.abram{at}shef.ac.uk

This paper addresses the notions of communicative and participative planning through an examination of some empirical difficulties in the case of a British planning process. It focuses on the different understandings found amongst participants to a local plan process in terms of the aims and methods of planning and of the future. Two particular problems are considered: the notion of representativeness required for participants to achieve legitimacy, and the disconnections between process and outcome. The paper further considers the rituals of planning as a form of institutionalized thought that supports a particular sort of governance and lends weight to certain epistemologies and technologies. This also challenges the Habermasian notion that participants can somehow set aside their own interests or power during discussions, since this assumes that power and interests are attributes that can be shed, rather than flowing from intrinsic ways of thinking and being in the world.


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
M. Lauria and J. A. Wagner
What Can We Learn from Empirical Studies of Planning Theory? A Comparative Case Analysis of Extant Literature
Journal of Planning Education and Research, June 1, 2006; 25(4): 364 - 381.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Planning TheoryHome page
L. Mazza
Technical Knowledge and Planning Actions
Planning Theory, March 1, 2002; 1(1): 11 - 26.
[PDF]