BEYOND THE PROCESS: DIFFICULTIES FOR THEORISATION WITHIN PLANNING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE – (Hosted within track 10: Theories)

Organizers

Christopher Maidment, University of Reading
Martin Sondermann, Academy for Territorial Development in the Leibniz Association

Contributors

Chris Webster, University of Hong Kong
Raine Mäntysalo, Aalto University
Meike Levin – Keitel, University of Vienna
Luke Juday, TU Wien

This roundtable brings together contributors to the ARL Working Group; ‘Beyond the Process – Finding common ground for a discussion on planning’s substantial foundation’, to discuss the difficulties associated with grasping a common theoretical foundation for spatial planning. 

Spatial planning activities often struggle for legitimacy in the face of populist politics, neoliberal forces and moves towards automation and digitisation, exacerbated by their often lacklustre contributions to addressing multiple crises (e.g. environmental, housing, economic etc.). Consequently, a lack of substantial theoretical foundation can be framed as undermining the discipline’s continued existence; without a substantial foundation how do we effectively communicate the positive contribution made by spatial planning and those that practice it in the face of such powerful forces?  How do we communicate the importance of spatial planning to those who might be interested in practicing it in the future?

Reflecting on the importance of theory in educating future planners, John Forester writes about the normative role of planning theory:

 “I take the task of planning theory only in part to do justice to the experience of contemporary planners facing the uncertainties, conflicts and political complexities they confront. But planning theory should do more: it should address possibilities for still better planning, possible directions for innovative work, avenues toward greater social welfare and lesser exploitation and domination, avenues toward lesser environmental degradation and toward more beautiful human environments. I take the challenge of planning theory to be not simply de‐constructive, exposing false promises and self‐serving rhetoric of ideologues, for example, but reconstructive, informing possibilities for human and environmental betterment.”

(Forester, 2007, p.242)

Yet, the starting assertion for the roundtable is that our body of planning theories has become overly focused on procedural approaches, whilst being, simultaneously, often impracticable for practitioners and belying a lack of agreement amongst academics about what constitutes a substantial foundation for spatial planning. Starting from this premise, each contributor will discuss their perspective on the ‘sore spots’ of planning theory:

• What is missing or lacking from our current constellation of planning theory?
• Which aspects of spatial planning require further attention in planning theory?
• What theoretical approaches can move us away from the tensions between theories of planning focused on substance and procedure?

Ultimately, the roundtable aims to stimulate discussion around the state of contemporary planning theory and consider whether a common theoretical foundation for planning is possible or desirable.

Reference

Forester, J. (2004). Reflections on trying to teach planning theory. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(2), 242–251. 

Key words: Planning theory, substantive theories, procedural theories