This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Dalton, L. C. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Weaving the Fabric of Planning as Education

California Polytechnic State University

This article explores planning education as a fabric. Over the past century, the central strands of planning knowledge and pedagogy have been remarkably consistent despite changing labels. Nevertheless, tensions persist regarding the identity of planning and nature of professional education. The biggest changes have occurred among the weavers. During the latter half of the twentieth century, social scientists replaced practitioners as teachers. Also, students emerged as demanding learners, calling for an interactive role in their education. Further, the field emerged from one where the planner was a "man who" to acute consciousness about ethnic and gender diversity. The author concludes that planning education in the twenty-first century should draw from multiple theories of practice— applied knowledge that helps planners understand ethical responsibility, communicate effectively, and address community problems meaningfully as they create the future.

Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 20, No. 4, 423-436 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X0102000404


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. W. Willson In-Class--Online Hybrid Methods of Teaching Planning Theory: Assessing Impacts on Discussion and Learning Journal of Planning Education and Research, December 1, 2008; 28(2): 237 - 246. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. A. Schweitzer, E. J. Howard, and I. Doran Planners Learning and Creating Power: A Community of Practice Approach Journal of Planning Education and Research, September 1, 2008; 28(1): 50 - 60. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Gunder Sustainability: Planning's Saving Grace or Road to Perdition? Journal of Planning Education and Research, December 1, 2006; 26(2): 208 - 221. [Abstract] [PDF]

				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]

				M. Neuman Notes on the Uses and Scope of City Planning Theory Planning Theory, July 1, 2005; 4(2): 123 - 145. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. L. Birch The Birth of City Planning in the United States 1840-1917 Journal of Planning Education and Research, June 1, 2005; 24(4): 453 - 455. [PDF]

				M. Gunder Shaping the Planner's Ego-Ideal: A Lacanian Interpretation of Planning Education Journal of Planning Education and Research, March 1, 2004; 23(3): 299 - 311. [Abstract] [PDF]

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

				M. Howland Response to Birch, Hopkins, and Dalton Journal of Planning Education and Research, June 1, 2001; 20(4): 440 - 442. [PDF]

				M. B. Teitz Commentary on the ACSP Mini-Symposium Journal of Planning Education and Research, June 1, 2001; 20(4): 443 - 444. [PDF]

				R. A. Yabes Comments on Birch, Hopkins, and Dalton Articles Journal of Planning Education and Research, June 1, 2001; 20(4): 445 - 447. [PDF]