No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Communicative Turn in Spatial Planning and Strategy
Abstract
The term “communicative turn” has been used to denote the spread of a planning theory, generally called “communicative planning theory” or “collaborative planning theory” that, instead of focusing on the production of a plan, emphasizes the value of planning in promoting public debates (Olsson 2009).
Communicative planning or collaborative planning is a planning approach where planners use discourse, communication, and consensus building for facilitating the dialogue between the stakeholders involved in a planning issue and reaching a shared understanding of the problem and consensus on what to do (Verma 2007; Machler and Milz 2015). Unlike systematic planning, where decisions are taken on the basis of the technical expertise and skills of the planner, the main concern of communicative planning is the democratic management and control of urban and regional environments and the...
... Following Reimer's (2013) argument that planning has taken an all too unproblematic turn towards new rationales, such as collaborative planning, we will outline the limitations of the collaborative in the dialogue processes we describe. A part of the critique towards collaborative planning is that it only involves a minority of the population, as the tools used by planners are designed for small groups (Proli 2019;Allmendinger and Tewdwr-Jones 2002). While this is a limitation of collaborative planning in general, it is likewise a limitation of this study, as the actors engaged in the dialogue were not diverse. ...
... Knowledge is constructed by power relationships between groups. The group with power influences how knowledge is communicated, how it is understood and the language on which it is based (Proli 2019). This implies that the power wielded by these actors has been reinforced. ...
... The data gathered from the two cases indicated that the problems were not solely about differences in professional language, but also about the different modes and formats of engagement and expectations of outcomes. The workshops were a materialization of the transformation, as well as a critique of the planning profession, paying more attention to dialogue than decisions (Proli 2019). Gluch, Johansson, and R€ ais€ anen (2013) emphasized that interaction between stakeholders in their research was enabled by their willingness to adapt and translate the respective disciplinary discourses. ...
Sweden is considered an environmental sustainability pioneer, targeting a 50% reduction in energy use in buildings by 2050. This ambitious goal requires the active engagement of municipal actors and the building sector. Dialogue processes have been identified as a way to mobilize such engagement, but in earlier research, there has been a lack of studies where dialogue practices are analyzed in real-time and on location and where the role of leadership has been scrutinized. Taking two cases in Malmö as a starting point, the aim of this paper is to analyze the interconnections between dialogue models and the local context and to examine how the role of process leadership affects exchanges between included actors. The results show that it is difficult to create guidelines useful in the local context and that learning was embedded in the doing and was transferred through the process leaders.
... The impact of financial figures is addressed through the instrument of gender budgeting, but otherwise there is little awareness of how regional planning allocates resources, such as the quantities of (urbanised) space allocated to female or male user groups or the amount of time allocated to female or male speakers at a consultancy meeting. Scarce empirical research available reveals considerable gendered differences (Raibaud 2015;Listerborn 2007). ...
This contribution looks at strategies for gender mainstreaming (GM) in planning practice applying gender/diversity design criteria. It offers a critical discussion of the ‘city of proximity’ (CoP) as a guiding principle for genderaware planning. Examples of guidelines and handbooks from different planning cultures show that the CoP is a widely adopted model, not only in gender mainstreaming, however it is seldom associated with its feminist origin. As planning professionals and researchers, we consider the role of urban and regional planning to change power relations and gendered norms. Taking two Austrian cities as examples, we illustrate the impact of GM on planning practice, revealing both the strength of the legislative framework and the limitations of Leitbilder that unintentionally reproduce gender stereotypes. The paper concludes with suggestions to move beyond the stage of pilot projects and handbooks, particularly in two fields: first, by looking at the attitudes and competences of professionals, and second, by dissociating the city of proximity from neighbourhoods while implementing gender criteria at a larger scale, e.g. in regional development plans.
It has been over 20 years since Judith Innes proclaimed communicative action to be the “emerging paradigm” for planning theory, a theoretical perspective which has been developed into what is known as collaborative planning theory (CPT). With planning theory shifting to a new generation of scholars, this commentary considers the fate of this intellectual movement within planning. CPT never achieved the paradigmatic status its advocates desired because of its internal diversity and limited scope. However, its useful combination of analytical and normative insights is attracting the interest of a new generation of researchers, who are subjecting it to rigorous empirical testing and addressing longstanding theoretical weaknesses. Like Jane Jacob’s classic book the Death and Life of Great American Cities, CPT has made an enduring impact on planning theory, even as has failed to achieve a total revolution in thinking.
This paper rejects the view that planners plan for use, not people. We observe that planners often see human needs and behavior to be peripheral to practice, focusing on financial, technical, material or environmental considerations. We argue that people - through social issues, social processes, and social organization - are fundamental to all planning activities. Therefore, all planners must more effectively integrate the social dimensions of planning into practice. The article first discusses several shifts in the social sciences, and second, examines three Canadian case studies: ecosystem planning and management in a UNESCO biosphere reserve; infrastructure planning in a northern resource town; and regional planning for homelessness in a medium-size metropolitan region. The paper concludes with a discussion of common strategies, successes, and challenges, highlighting the role of planners in the integration of social dimensions into planning practice.
The purpose of this article is to expose the concept of collaborative planning to the reality of planning, thereby assessing its efficacy for informing and explaining what planners `really' do and can do. In this systematic appraisal, we begin by disaggregating collaborative planning into four elements that can enlighten such conceptual frameworks: ontology, epistemology, ideology and methodology. These four lenses help delimit and clarify the object of our examination and provide transparent criteria that guide our examination of collaborative planning's strengths and weaknesses. The second part of this article comprises an empirical investigation of planning processes in Northern Ireland, ranging from region-wide to local and from statutory to visionary. Planning efforts in this province make suitable test cases because special care has been invested in participatory deliberation processes to compensate for the democratic deficits in its mainstream political system. Such efforts have sought to ensure a maximally inclusive planning process. And indeed, the consultation process leading to the Regional Development Strategy, for example, has earned plaudits from leading exponents of collaborative planning. The final analysis provides a systematic gauge of collaborative planning in light of our empirical evidence, deploying the four conceptual dimensions introduced in the first part. This exposes a range of problems not only with the concept itself but also regarding its affinity with the uncollaborative world within which it has to operate. The former shed light on those aspects where collaborative planning as a conceptual tool for practitioners needs to be renovated, while the latter highlight inconsistencies in a political framework that struggles to accommodate both global competitiveness and local democratic collaboration.
The author examines three approaches to planning theory: the communicative model, the new urbanism, and the just city. The first type emphasizes the planner's role in mediating among "stakeholders," the second paints a physical picture of a desirable planned city, and the third presents a model of spatial relations based on equity. Differences among the types reflect an enduring tension between a focus on the planning process and an emphasis on desirable out- comes. The author defends the continued use of the just-city model and a modified form of the political economy mode of analysis that underlies it. The past decade has witnessed a reinvigoration of theoretical discussion within the discipline of planning. Inspired by postmodernist cultural critique and by the move among philosophers away from logical positivism toward a substantive concern with ethics and public policy, planning theorists have reframed their debates over methods and programs to encompass issues of discourse and inclusiveness. In the 1970s and 1980s, proponents of positivist scientific analysis battled advocates of materialist political economy. Although the divide between positivists and their opponents persists, other issues have come to define the leading edge of planning theory. Contempo- rary disagreements concern the usefulness of Habermasian communicative rationality, the effect of physical design on social outcomes (an old debate resurfaced), and the potential for stretching a postmarxist political economy approach to encompass a more complex view of social structure and social benefits than was envisioned by materialist analysis. Although discussions of
While studies undertaken by communicative planning theorists provide valuable insights into everyday planning practice, there is a growing debate around the need for greater acknowledgement of relations of power and inequality. In particular, communicative planning theory has tended to obscure planning's problematic relation to the state. This paper opens for debate conceptions of public discourse in planning that, on the one hand, draw on Habermas's notions of communicative rationality, but on the other, fail to critically examine his positioning of these in opposition to state and economy. It is argued that the implications of critiques of Habermas's ideas may involve questioning the very possibility of communicative planning itself.
In this paper we argue that the use of the communicative theory of Jürgen Habermas in planning theory is problematic because it hampers an understanding of how power shapes planning. We posit an alternative approach based on the power analytics of Michel Foucault which focuses on ‘what is actually done’, as opposed to Habermas’s focus on ‘what should be done’. We discuss how the Foucauldian stance problematises planning, asking difficult questions about the treatment of legitimacy, rationality, knowledge and spatiality. We conclude that Foucault offers a type of analytic planning theory which offers better prospects than does Habermas for those interested in understanding and bringing about democratic social change through planning.
Information is a source of power in the planning process. This article begins by assessing five perspectives of the planner's use of information: those of the technician, the incremental pragmatist, the liberal advocate, the structuralist, and the “progressive.” Then several types of misinformation (inevitable or unnecessary, ad hoc or systematic) are distinguished in a reformulation of bounded rationality in planning, and practical responses by planning staff are identified. The role and ethics of planners acting as sources of misinformation are considered. In practice planners work in the face of power manifest as the social and political (mis)-man-agement of citizens' knowledge, consent, trust, and attention. Seeking to enable planners to anticipate and counteract sources of misinformation threatening public serving, democratic planning processes, the article clarifies a practical and politically sensitive form of “progressive” planning practice.
Much communicative planning is consensus oriented and rests on ideas of deliberative democracy. Planning recommendations made by dialogue are based on the intellectual force of arguments giving reasoned rankings of the planning alternatives. Dialogue encompasses the amalgamation of arguments in accordance with democratic criteria ensuring the communicative rationality of the process and the legitimacy of the recommendation. The balancing and weighing of arguments should avoid decision cycles that would make the recommendation of a plan arbitrary. By an analogy with Arrow’s theorem on the general impossibility of consistent and fair social choice, it is demonstrated that dialogue cannot ensure consistent recommendations and simultaneously prepare for political decision making in a democratic manner. The result is valid for debates over planning alternatives when differences in quality are not comparable across all the important arguments (concerning noise, safety, visual standard, social impact, etc.), which is the most common situation.
During the last decade or so, many planning theorists have taken a so-called communicative turn, to the point where some have declared the emergence of a dominant new paradigm supported by increasing consensus among theorists. We wish to raise a number of broad questions about the communicative paradigm and claims for its theoretical dominance. We point to alternative analytical positions that focus on issues of power, of the stare, and of political economy, in ways that are often underplayed in the communicative literature and that demonstrate a healthy diversity in the field. We offer six critical propositions about communicative planning theory as a contribution to the ongoing debates, in theory and practice, about the contested nature of planning, its practices and effects
This article proposes an approach to planning which aims to realise the democratic potential of planning in the contemporary conditions of societies with developed economies and diverse social structures. It is argued in this article that the Habermasian conception of inter-subjective reasoning among diverse discourse communities, drawing on technical, moral and expressive-aesthetic ways of experiencing and understanding, can provide a direction for the invention of forms and practices of a planning behaviour appropriate for societies which seek progressive ways of collectively "making sense together while living differently'. The article draws on the work of a number of contemporary writers in the field of planning theory to present an outline of such an approach, and its implications for the contemporary practices of environmental planning. -from Author
Community engagement and citizen participation have long been important themes in liberal democratic theory, although managerial versions of liberal democracy have typically been dominant. In the past two decades, however, many countries have seen a shift away from a managerial or top-down approach, towards a revitalised emphasis on building institutional bridges between governmental leaders and citizenry, often termed 'community engagement'. This paper outlines some of the main explanations for this shift, including international trends in governance and political economy; the availability of improved communications technologies; the need to share responsibility for resolving complex issues; and the local politics of managing social, economic and environmental projects. Some critical perspectives are also raised, suggesting a degree of scepticism about the intentions of government and implying serious limits on the potential influence of the citizenry and community groups. Important distinctions are drawn between policy arenas, in relation to the different dynamics and opportunities in different policy fields. The importance of building effective capacity for citizens and all non-government organisations (NGOs) to participate is emphasised. Typologies of community engagement are outlined, and linked to ideas about social capital.
Citizen participation in such complex issues as the quality of the environment, neighborhood housing, urban design, and economic development often brings with it suspicion of government, anger between stakeholders, and power plays by many—as well as appeals to rational argument. Deliberative planning practice in these contexts takes political vision and pragmatic skill. Working from the accounts of practitioners in urban and rural settings, North and South, John Forester shows how skillful deliberative practices can facilitate practical and timely participatory planning processes. In so doing, he provides a window onto the wider world of democratic governance, participation, and practical decisionmaking. Integrating interpretation and theoretical insight with diverse accounts of practice, Forester draws on political science, law, philosophy, literature, and planning to explore the challenges and possibilities of deliberative practice.
Planning is challenged to interrelate four different concepts of rationality: value, instrumental, communicative, and strategic. Working out an emancipatory planning approach needs to focus on conflict and power relations and needs communicative, people-centred, practices. Therefore, the author confronts dimensions in the broader planning process with systems of power. Besides planning literature, the author's experience in practice is used. In this way directions are provided for incorporating an explicit power strategy in planning and for the form it may take.
This thesis investigates how objectives of integrating urban planning, city design and transport policies have been pursued in key case study cities as part of a compact city agenda since the early 1990s. Focusing on the underlying institutional arrangements, it examines how urban policymakers, professionals and stakeholders have worked across disciplinary silos, geographic scales and different time horizons to facilitate more compact and connected urban development. The thesis draws on empirical evidence from two critical cases, London and Berlin, established through a mixed method approach of expert interviews, examination of policy and planning documents, and review of key literature. Four main groups of integration mechanisms were identified and analysed: those related to (1) governance structures, (2) processes of planning and policymaking, (3) more specific instruments, and (4) enabling conditions. Based on having identified converging trends as part of the institutional changes that facilitated planning and policy integration in the case study cities, this thesis presents three main findings. First, rather than building on either more hierarchical or networked forms of integration, integrative outcomes are linked to a hybrid model of integration that combines hierarchy and networks. Second, while institutional change itself can lead to greater integration, continuous adjustment of related mechanisms is more effective in achieving this than disruptive, one-off ‘integration fixes’. Third, integrated governance facilitating compact urban growth represents a form of privileged integration, which centrally involves and even relies on the prioritisation of certain links between sectoral policy and geographic scales over others. Integrating urban planning, city design and transport policy at the city and metropolitan level, this thesis concludes, is essentially a prioritisation, which the compact city model implies and helps to justify.
With trust in top-down government faltering, community-based groups around the world are displaying an ever-greater appetite to take control of their own lives and neighbourhoods. Government, for its part, is keen to embrace the projects and the planning undertaken at this level, attempting to regularise it and use it as a means of reconnecting to citizens and localising democracy. This unique book analyses the contexts, drivers and outcomes of community action and planning in a selection of case studies in the global north: from emergent neighbourhood planning in England to the community-based housing movement in New York, and from active citizenship in the Dutch new towns to associative action in Marseille. It will be a valuable resource for academic researchers and for postgraduate students on social policy, planning and community development courses.
The interactive and communicative nature of planning is widely recognised by planning theorists and practitioners. It is increasingly argued that the outcomes of planning process are not confined to policies but also include other essential results such as transformative learning (Friedmann, 1987), communicative networks (Forester, 1989), institutional capital (Healey, 1996) and consensus and commitments (Innes, 1994). This development raises compelling questions about which outcomes should be evaluated and how. Traditionally evaluation has been concerned with the assessment of consequences of policies with a view to searching out their comparative advantages and disadvantages (Lichfield, 1996). This type of evaluation is neither entirely adequate nor relevant in the case of communicative planning. Evaluation should provide occasions for ideological and procedural reflections on various results of communicative planning (Faludi and Altes, 1997). Recent research in evaluation moves beyond previous evaluation approaches which focused on rational and systematic measurements and judgements and envisages evaluation as an interactive exploration of claims, concerns and issues among stakeholding groups (Guba and Lincoln, 1989). This advance in evaluation research provides opportunity for extending the assessment of planning process to include even ‘communicative outputs’.
This article makes the case that legally required participation methods in the US not only do not meet most basic goals for public participation, but they are also counterproductive, causing anger and mistrust. Both theory and practice are dominated by ambivalence about the idea of participation itself. Both struggle with dilemmas that make the problems seem insoluble, such as the conflict between the individual and collective interest or between the ideal of democracy and the reality that many voices are never heard. Cases are used to draw on an emerging set of practices of collaborative public engagement from around the world to demon- strate how alternative methods can better meet public participation goals and how they make moot most of the dilemmas of more conventional practice. Research shows that collaborative partici- pation can solve complex, contentious problems such as budget decision making and create an improved climate for future action when bitter disputes divide a community. Authentic dialogue, networks and institutional capacity are the key elements. The authors propose that participation should be understood as a multi-way set of interactions among citizens and other players who together produce outcomes. Next steps involve developing an alternative practice framework, creating forums and arenas, adapting agency decision processes, and providing training and financial support.
This article uses a collective action approach to analyse the risk of social dilemmas in communicative planning processes. If actors are self-interested and lack a predisposition to co-operation and communication, they may choose to free ride or under-contribute to the non-excludable outputs of voluntary communicative planning processes that lack reprisals for defection or under-contribution. To motivate their participation, actors must expect some exclusive additional reward. This analysis leads to a suggestion that communicative planning may create social capital networks that offer valuable relational rewards, in varying amounts, to some or all interdependent stakeholders. The value of relational rewards is their potential to reduce transaction costs in future collective actions. The expectation of relational rewards may be a selective incentive powerful enough to counteract the social dilemmas inherent in communicative planning processes in pursuit of normative goals such as inclusive-ness and diversity. However, the existence of relational rewards may facilitate strategic action as much as communicative action.
Consensual groups are playing a growing role in planning. This article looks at the group processes that have played key roles in state growth management programs in Florida, Vermont, and New Jersey. The groups have been involved in problem framing, policy development, policy oversight and review, negotiations among competing interests, and developing procedures for accomplishing complex new tasks. The group processes have succeeded in developing shared meaning, coordinating among agencies and levels of government, and often in reaching consensus among players. But they have been only partially successful, at this stage. The next challenge is to redesign planning and decision making institutions to incorporate group processes in a way that makes effective use of what they accomplish.
This paper explores emerging forms for the system and practice of British planning, set in the context of managing conflicts over the use and development of land, and promoting particular qualities of places. In some periods, these two purposes came together, at other times, they drifted apart. Economic, environmental, social and political pressures in the 1990s encourage reintegration. This presents a demanding challenge requiring both the invention of new ways of working and changes in the formal arrangements of the planning system. It promises a more sustainable approach to addressing contemporary concerns with qualities of place in a 'stakeholder society'.
Analyzing emerging practices of collaboration in planning and public policy to overcome the challenges complexity, fragmentation and uncertainty, the authors present a new theory of collaborative rationality, to help make sense of the new practices. They enquire in detail into how collaborative rationality works, the theories that inform it, and the potential and pitfalls for democracy in the twenty-first century. Representing the authors' collective experience based upon over thirty years of research and practice, this is insightful reading for students, educators, scholars, and reflective practitioners in the fields of urban planning, public policy, political science and public administration. © 2010 Judith E. Innes and David E. Booher. All rights reserved.
This article presents a personal review by the author of Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, published in 1997. It explains how the book came to be written and makes some comments on the various criticisms it has attracted. The first section introduces key experiences that fed into the book followed by a brief summary of the key ideas that underpin its arguments. In reviewing the critiques, the article focuses in particular on the treatment of `context', the emphasis on `process', the use of `social theory', and `power', and the development of `institutionalist' analysis. This is followed by a comment on the normative biases in the work. In conclusion, the author makes a plea for continuing attention to the complexity and diversity of urban governance contexts and the importance for practical action of grasping the particularities of situated governance dynamics
The heated controversy over “citizen participation,” “citizen control”, and “maximum feasible involvement of the poor,” has been waged largely in terms of exacerbated rhetoric and misleading euphemisms. To encourage a more enlightened dialogue, a typology of citizen participation is offered using examples from three federal social programs: urban renewal, anti-poverty, and Model Cities. The typology, which is designed to be provocative, is arranged in a ladder pattern with each rung corresponding to the extent of citizens' power in determining the plan and/or program.
The search for scientific bases for confronting problems of social policy is bound to fail, becuase of the nature of these problems. They are wicked problems, whereas science has developed to deal with tame problems. Policy problems cannot be definitively described. Moreover, in a pluralistic society there is nothing like the undisputable public good; there is no objective definition of equity; policies that respond to social problems cannot be meaningfully correct or false; and it makes no sense to talk about optimal solutions to social problems unless severe qualifications are imposed first. Even worse, there are no solutions in the sense of definitive and objective answers.
Amplia explicación orientada a clarificar el significado del término posmoderno en diferentes conceptos y a identificar cuán adecuado y útil ha sido para describir la experiencia vital de la humanidad de fines del siglo XX. Esta búsqueda conceptual a su vez se desdobla en un ensayo de historia de las ideas y de su relación con los cambios sociales y políticos. Es trazada una historia semántica y social del modernismo -desde la Ilustración hasta los años 1990- y de su manifestación en ideas políticas y sociales, en la arquitectura y el arte, pero sobre todo es cosiderado un factor más profundo: la variación de la percepción y del significado del tiempo y del espacio, según sean las coordenadas temporales-espaciales donde se produce dicha percpeción y significación, y los importantes efectos que dicha variación tiene en los valores individuales y en los procesos sociales fundamentales.
There is an increasing contemporary interest, particularly in Europe, in the spatial organization of urban regions and in spatial strategy. But there is a general loss of confidence in political systems as mechanisms for conflict mediation and the strategic management of collective affairs. This raises questions about how stakeholders in spatial change in urban regions get to understand the complex dynamics of urban regions, how they get to agree on strategies and actions, and how this may be translated into influence on events. In this paper I explore the potential of the new ideas about public argumentation and communicative policy practice developing in the field of planning theory for addressing the task of strategic spatial strategy-making. I first outline the ideas, and then develop them into an approach focused around questions about the forums and arenas where spatial strategy-making takes place, and who gets access to them; the style of discussion, the way issues are identified and filtered; how new policy discourses emerge, and how agreements are reached and monitored. Throughout, I emphasise the locally contingent ways in which policy processes are invented by political communities in relation to their particular economic, social, environmental, and political circumstances.
Improving the qualities of places is attracting increasing policy and academic interest in contemporary Europe. This raises questions about the appropriate governance capacity to deliver such improvements. I argue that a key element of such capacity lies in the quality of local policy cultures. Some are well integrated, well connected, and well informed, and can mobilise readily to act to capture opportunities and enhance local conditions. Others are fragmented, lack the connections to sources of power and knowledge, and the mobilisation capacity, to organise to make a difference. In recent years, the emphasis in attempts to change urban governance capacity, particularly in Britain, has been on encouraging catalytic projects and partnerships. Recent experience across Europe suggests that wider transformative effects are difficult to achieve without careful consideration of the partnership form and how it connects to the wider policy culture. They may also have the effect of increasing the fragmentation of local capacity. I examine the potential of collaborative approaches in place-making initiatives in achieving more effective and durable transformations. Collaborative approaches emphasise the importance of building new policy discourses about the qualities of places, developing collaboration among stakeholders in policy development as well as delivery, widening stakeholder involvement beyond traditional power elites, recognising different forms of local knowledge, and building rich social networks as a resource of institutional capital through which new initiatives can be taken rapidly and legitimately. They shift the task of urban planning from 'building places' to fostering the institutional capacity in territorial political communities for ongoing 'place-making' activities.
What has becomes known in recent years as communicative or collaborative planning has forged a new hegemony in planning theory. Described by some as the paradigm of the 1990s, it proposes a fundamental challenge to the practice of planning that seeks both to explain where planning has gone wrong and (more controversially) to identify ways forward. The broad approach itself and advocates of it have lacked the advantage of any critique. This paper provides such an opportunity. Following a brief outline of communicative action, we identify three broad areas of concern that militate against the option of a collaborative planning approach. More specifically, we identify problematic assumptions in Habermas's original theoretical distinction of communicative action as a fourth separate concept of sociological action. Although we accept its useful dissection of planning and the role of values and consensus-building in decision-settings, we consider that collaborative planning theory fails to incorporate adequately the peculiar political and professional nuances that exist in planning practice. We conclude our critique by raising programmatic points for planning theory and practice in general.
Innes. The evolution of communicative planning theory. Young academics booklet series
- L Machler
- D Milz
Machler L, Milz D (2015) Innes. The evolution of communicative planning theory. Young academics booklet
series. InPlanning, Groningen.
A methodology for communicative planning
- K Stromberg
Planning futures: new directions for planning theory
- P Allmendinger
Allmendinger P, Tewdwr-Jones M (2002) Planning
futures: new directions for planning theory. Routledge,
London/New York
Collaborative planning in an uncollaborative world
- P Bourdieu
Bourdieu P (1990) In other words: essays towards a reflective sociology. Polity Press, Oxford
Brand R, Gaffikin F (2007) Collaborative planning in an
uncollaborative world. Planning Theory 6(3):282-313.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095207082036
Designing public consensus: the civic theatre of community participation for architects landscape architects, planners and urban designers
- B Faga
Faga B (2006) Designing public consensus: the civic theatre of community participation for architects landscape architects, planners and urban designers. Wiley,
London
Fainstein SS (2000) New directions in planning theory.
Urban Aff Rev 35(4):451-478. https://doi.org/
10.1177/107808740003500401
reasons and the rationalisation of society
- J Habermas
Habermas J (1984) The theory of communicative action
vol. 1: reasons and the rationalisation of society. Beacon Press, Boston
Planning with complexity: an introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge, New York Khakee A (1998) The communicative turn in planning and evaluation
- J Innes
- D Booher
Innes J, Booher D (2010) Planning with complexity: an
introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge, New York
Khakee A (1998) The communicative turn in planning and
evaluation. In: Lichfield N, Barbanente A, Borri D,
Khakee A, Prat A (eds) Evaluation in planning: facing
the challenge of complexity. Springer, Berlin, pp
97-112
The talk of the community
- S Mandelbaum
Mandelbaum S (1996) The talk of the community. In:
Mandelbaum S, Mazza L, Burchell RW (eds) Explorations in planning theory. Center for Urban Policy
Research, Rutgers, pp 3-10
Basic Books, New York Stromberg K (1999) A methodology for communicative planning
- D Schön
Schön D (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books, New York
Stromberg K (1999) A methodology for communicative
planning. In: Proceedings of the Gothenburg conference: communication in urban planning, Gothenburg,
2-5 October 1999. http://www.greenstructureplanning.
eu/MAPweb/Goteb/index.htm. Accessed 25 July 2018
Space, knowledge and power. In: Rabinow P (ed) The Foucault reader
- M Foucault
Foucault M (1984) Space, knowledge and power. In:
Rabinow P (ed) The Foucault reader. Pantheon
Books, New York, pp 239-256