This course addresses the question -- What is an urban planner?” What is the unambiguous domain of today’s professional urban planning expert? What form and character of professional education is required to train urban planners in an occupation facing an expanding breadth of knowledge demand combined with a wide and growing range of sociopolitical practice roles? Knowledge demands include a command and application of sophisticated scientific, cultural and legal understanding. Sociopolitical roles include capacities for facilitation, negotiation, conflict management/resolution, public communication/education, coalition building, stakeholder recruitment and management, and a capacity for leadership in the public policy domain. Thus, one of the main purposes of the course is to explore means of bringing about effective synthesis and cohesion in urban planning theory to: (1) bridge the continuing gap between theory and practice, and (2) integrate the relations between required technical knowledge, normative value understanding, and the and required sociopolitical skill. The primary learning objective is to provide the doctoral student with a firm capacity for: (1) teaching undergraduate and graduate students in the importance and practical effectiveness of planning theory and its relation to planning practice, and (2) furthering future research and new understanding of the underlying theories of the urban planning profession. The course will function as a discussion seminar utilizing a book currently in draft form by the instructor together with reference to current planning theory literature combined with readings in underlying philosophical analyses.
The primary objective of the course is to train the doctoral student to fully understand the issues, complexity and character of the many different branches of planning theory/practice and how they may be joined and integrated in a coherent fashion. This understanding should be combined with the development of skill in teaching undergraduate and graduate students in urban planning and advancing the fundamental competencies of the urban planning profession generally.
STUDENT EXPECTATIONS AND ACTIVITY
Students will maintain a journal indicating their impressions of readings and discussion, critiques, and desires for future further explorations. Journals will be turned in on 5 occasions: (1) Initial copies of the journal will be turned in at the time of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th week of the semester, (2) the week before Spring Break (written only) and (3) at the end of the semester. The journal will also be presented orally at the last class. The final written journal will be turned in at the last class. A suggested format is provided on the last page of the syllabus.
Students are expected to fully participate in each class discussion. As a doctoral course, students are expected to be able to discuss and present their ideas, comments, critiques and other pertinent ideas for each class discussion.
SCHEDULE, TOPICS AND READINGS
Week 1: Friday January 22, 2016. Introduction. In this first session students and faculty will introduce each other, including their backgrounds and previous experience and/or training in planning theory. The course requirements and expectations will be introduced and summarized. Discussion will focus on a general overview of the issues and deficiencies in a theory of the urban planning profession.
Reading: Bolan text Chapter 1
Week 2: Friday, January 29, 2016. Need for addressing the fragmentation of planning theory. In this session we will discuss the many fragmentations of efforts to create a theoretical foundation for the urban planning profession and approaches to overcoming these divisions.
Innes, J.E. and D.E. Booher (2010). Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. London and New York: Routledge. Chapters 1 and 2.
Friedmann, John (2008). "The Uses of Planning Theory: A Bibliographic Essay."Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28.2: 247-257.
Sanyal, B., L.J. Vale, and C.D. Rosan, Editors (2012). “Four planning conversations,” in Planning Ideas that Matter. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fischler, R. (2012). "Fifty Theses on Urban Planning and Urban Planners,” Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(1); 107-114.
Healey, P. (2010). Making Better Places: The Planning Project in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Palgrave-MacMillan. Chapter 1, pp. 1-21.
Week 3: Friday, February 5, 2016. A model hypothesis for analyzing knowledge to action. In this session we will outline the basic processes in moving toward deciding what to do.
Reading: Bolan text Chapter 2
Hollis, M. (2002). The Philosophy of Social Science: an Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 1, pp 1-20.
Bolan, R.S. (1999). “Rationality revisited: an alternative perspective on reason in management and planning.” Journal of Management History, 5 (2), 68-86.
Week 4: Friday, February 12, 2016. A look at the basics of knowing. How do we “know” what we “know?” We will explore the fundamental aspects of “knowing” and “knowledge" leading to the "dialectical matrix of planning knowledge."
Reading: Bolan text Chapter 3
Pepper, S.C. (1942). World Hypotheses. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Try to read the entire book; but the key chapters are found in Part Two – pages 141-314.
Hollis, M. (2002). The Philosophy of Social Science: an Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 4.
Campbell, H. (2012). “Planning to Change the World: Between Knowledge and Action Lies Synthesis,” Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(2) 135–146.
Week 5: Friday, February 19, 2015. The role of scientific knowledge in urban planning. Urban planners rely on science, but only in the sense of “applied” science rather than “basic” science. Both the physical and the social sciences are part of urban planning knowledge. Both have many difficulties and uncertainties, especially the social sciences.
Reading: Bolan text Chapter 4
Rosenberg, A. (2012). Philosophy of Social Science, Fourth Edition. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Chapter 2 and 3
Little, D. (2012). Varieties of Social Explanation. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Chapters 2, 3, and 4.
Week 6: Friday, February 26, 2015. The role of cultural knowledge in urban planning. This week will focus on cultural knowledge with attention to how the norms, customs, institutions, rituals of the social world are constructed.
Reading: Bolan text Chapter 5
Searle, J.R. (2010). Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Pages TBA)
Elder-Vass, D. (2012). The Reality of Social Construction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (Pages TBA)
Alexander, E.R. (2009). " Planning in Complexity—Institutional Design Implications," Journal of Planning Education and Research28:518-524
Week 7: Friday, March 4, 2016. The Importance of Self-Knowledge in Urban Planning.Knowledge of the self, or the sense of “being-in-the-world,” will be discussed as a vital part of planning theory and practice.
Reading: Bolan text Chapter 6
Goleman, D; Boyatzis, R. and McKee, A. (2013). Primal Leadership: Unleashing the Power of Emotional Intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Bolan, R. S. (1983). "Ethical Choice in Planning Practice," Journal of Planning Education and Research, 3.
AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct, Adopted March 19, 2005; Effective June 1, 2005; Revised October 3, 2009 [ www.planning.org/ethics/ ].
Week 8: Friday, March 4, 2016. An analysis of action The philosophical analysis of the basis of individual action and its implications for planning practice.
Assignment: Turn in a copy of your journal to date:
Reading: Bolan text Chapter 7 and Chapter 8
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1963). The Structure of Behavior. Boston: Beacon Press. (Pages TBA)
Lakoff and Johnson (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Pages TBA)
Hollis, M. (2002). The Philosophy of Social Science: an Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 7, 8 and 12.
Ricoeur, P. (1966). Freedom and Nature: The Voluntary and the Involuntary. Fort Worth, TX: The Texas Christian University Press. (Pages TBA)
Bratman, M.E. (2014). Shared Agency: A Planning Theory of Acting Together. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press. (Pages TBA)
Gilbert, M. (2014). Joint Commitment: How We Make the Social World. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press. (Pages TBA)
Week 9: Friday, March 25, 2016. . Reasoning processes in deciding what to do. Moving from descriptive explanation and prescriptive action – the foundations of design thinking as the source of deciding what to do.
Reading: Bolan text Chapter 9
Stein, S.M. and T.L. Harper (2012)."Creativity and Innovation: Divergence and Convergence in Pragmatic Dialogical Planning," Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(1): 5-17.
DonaldA.Schon(1979).GenerativeMetaphor:APerspectiveonProblem-Settingin Social Policy,"in MetaphorandThought,editedbyAndrewOrtony.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,pp.254-283.
Tim Brown (2009). Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. Pymble, Australia: HarperCollins e-books [http://www.harpercollinsebooks.com.au].
Cross, N. (2011). Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work. London: Bloomsbury.
Lawson, B and K. Dorst (2009). Design Expertise. Oxford: Elsevier Architectural Press.
Review: Campbell, H. (2012). “Planning to Change the World: Between Knowledge and Action Lies Synthesis.” Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32-2, 135-146.
Week 10: Friday, April 1, 2016.The Planner as Utopian or Conflict Resolver or Zoning Administrator? The doctor seeks health, the lawyer seeks justice, the theologian seeks salvation – what is the planner seeking? Are planners seeking to plan space/place or simply real estate governance? Or is there some other key factor in the urban economic, social and political makeup of the urban landscape?
Readings: Bolan text Chapter 10 and Epilog.
Cresswell, T. (2015). Place: An Introduction. Second Edition. Oxford: John-Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Wiley-Blackwell.
Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press. Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Week 11: Friday, April 8, 2016. The theory of practice and the practitioner as theorist. How do planners think and reason in carrying out the urban planning role?
Bolan, R. (1980). “The Practitioner as Theorist: the Phenomenology of the Professional Episode.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 46 (3), 261-274.
Whittimore, A. H. (2014). "Phenomenology and City Planning,"Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34(3), 301-308.
Week 12: Friday, April 15, 2016. The complexities of planning episodes. How do planners cope with tensions, contradictions, discontinuities, and conflict in carrying out the urban planning role?
Review: Alexander, E.R. (2009). " Planning in Complexity—Institutional Design Implications," Journal of Planning Education and Research28:518-524
Innes, J.E. and D.E. Booher (2010). Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. London and New York: Routledge. Chapter 3.
Forester, J. (2013). Planning in the Face of Conflict: the Surprising Possibilities of Facilitative Leadership. Chicago: the American Planning Association, Planners Press. Chapters 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Massey, D.S., L. Albright, R. Casciano, E. Derikson and D.N. Kinsey (2013). Climbing Mount Laurel: The Struggle for Affordable Housing and Social Mobility in an American Suburb. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Chapters 1 and 2.
Week 13: Friday, April 22 2016. How do we address the education and training of urban planners? What is the primary emphasis in the design of most planning education programs? Is this an appropriate emphasis? What might be a more suitable redesign of such programs?
Planning Accreditation Board (2012). Planning Accreditation Standards, Part 4. Curriculum @ www. planning accreditation board.org
Sanchez, T.W. and N. Afzalan (2014). "Mapping the Knowledge Domain of Planning," Paper presented at the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning 54th Annual Conference. Philadelphia, Pa.
Innes, J.E. and D.E. Booher (2010). Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. London and New York: Routledge. Chapter 4, 5, and 6.
Week 14: Friday, April 29, 2016. Overview of the future of planning theory: Coming challenges
Judith Rodin (2014). The Resilience Dividend: Being Strong in a World Where Things Go Wrong. New York: Public Affairs, Perseus Group
Davoudi, Simin, et al. "Resilience: A Bridging Concept or a Dead End?" Planning Theory & Practice13.2 (2012): 299-333. Quick, K.S. and M.S. Feldman (2011). “Distinguishing Participation and Inclusion,” Journal of Planning Education and Research, 31(3), 272–290.
Louis Albrechts (2013). “Reframing Strategic Spatial Planning By Using a Coproduction Perspective,” Planning Theory: 12(1), 46–63.
Harper, T. L. and S.M. Stein (2012). Dialogical Planning in a Fragmented Society. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. (Pages TBA)
Week 15: Friday, May 6, 2016. Review and evaluation Oral Journal Presentations
Turn in assignment: written journal
Weekly submission for the following weeks only:
January 29, 2016
February 5, 2016
February 12, 2016
Mid-term Submission Due on:
March 11, 2016
Final Submission Due on:
Final Written submission and Oral Presentation: May 6, 2016
General Outline for first 3 week submissions
Name and Date of Entries
Comments on Reading Assignments
Major summary of readings
Major impressions and interpretations of readings
Major criticisms or praise of readings (including any relationship to past readings, past research, or past experience)