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 Similar articles in Web of Science
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 Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hoch, C. J.
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?

Pragmatic Communicative Action Theory

Charles J. Hoch

University of Illinois at Chicago

Communicative action (CA) theory need not displace the critical insights of social scientists, geographers, and other urban scholars about the processes of social, economic, and political change that shape urban settlements. CA analysts believe we settle differences in research findings and interpretations by studying the consequences these differences produce instead of claiming philosophical trump. In the first part of this article, I summarize and critique the argument that CA theory is unrealistic explaining of how CA analysts care more about relevant consequences than causal certainty. In the second part of the article, taking some conceptual advice from social theorist Jurgen Habermas, I show how CA analysis can combine structural and intentional concepts to revise and integrate the apparent antagonism between comprehensiveness and compromise for planning practice. I conclude that a pragmatic CA provides a useful and critical theory for planning practice that remains open to future challenge and debate.

Key Words: communicative planning • critical realist • comprehensive planning • planning theory • pragmatism

Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 26, No. 3, 272-283 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X06295029
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
J. Friedmann
The Uses of Planning Theory: A Bibliographic Essay
Journal of Planning Education and Research, December 1, 2008; 28(2): 247 - 257.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Planning Education and ResearchHome page
C. Andrews, H. C. Jonas, N. Mantell, and R. Solomon
Deliberating on Statewide Energy Targets
Journal of Planning Education and Research, September 1, 2008; 28(1): 6 - 20.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Planning Education and ResearchHome page
D. F. Shmueli, S. Kaufman, and C. Ozawa
Mining Negotiation Theory for Planning Insights
Journal of Planning Education and Research, March 1, 2008; 27(3): 359 - 364.
[Abstract] [PDF]