注意日益扩大的 "理论-实践差距"?规划实践中实证主义的退却

IF 1.6 Q3 URBAN STUDIES
Carol Ludwig, O. Sykes, Greg Ludwig
{"title":"注意日益扩大的 \"理论-实践差距\"?规划实践中实证主义的退却","authors":"Carol Ludwig, O. Sykes, Greg Ludwig","doi":"10.3828/tpr.2023.32","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that recent times have seen a (re)intensification of positivist decision making in planning practice in England. Ostensibly underpinned by appeals to scientific evidence and ‘objective’ fact, it seems this is resulting in an increased difficulty in operationalising subjective forms of knowledge. This it is argued has led to a widening theory–practice gap which has serious consequences for participatory democracy. The paper uses planning philosophy (theories of knowledge) as an analytical framework with which to examine these developments from both a theoretical and practice perspective. The latter is supported by insights from public and private sector planners, gathered during semi-structured interviews in 2021. Our findings suggest that a better philosophical understanding of the world within which planning operates can meaningfully inform both theory and practice and help planners to make sense of and navigate the trends described above.","PeriodicalId":47547,"journal":{"name":"TOWN PLANNING REVIEW","volume":"27 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mind the widening ‘theory–practice gap’? The retreat to positivism in planning practice\",\"authors\":\"Carol Ludwig, O. Sykes, Greg Ludwig\",\"doi\":\"10.3828/tpr.2023.32\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article argues that recent times have seen a (re)intensification of positivist decision making in planning practice in England. Ostensibly underpinned by appeals to scientific evidence and ‘objective’ fact, it seems this is resulting in an increased difficulty in operationalising subjective forms of knowledge. This it is argued has led to a widening theory–practice gap which has serious consequences for participatory democracy. The paper uses planning philosophy (theories of knowledge) as an analytical framework with which to examine these developments from both a theoretical and practice perspective. The latter is supported by insights from public and private sector planners, gathered during semi-structured interviews in 2021. Our findings suggest that a better philosophical understanding of the world within which planning operates can meaningfully inform both theory and practice and help planners to make sense of and navigate the trends described above.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47547,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"TOWN PLANNING REVIEW\",\"volume\":\"27 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"TOWN PLANNING REVIEW\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2023.32\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"URBAN STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"TOWN PLANNING REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2023.32","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"URBAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文认为,近来英格兰规划实践中实证主义决策的(再)强化。从表面上看,实证主义是以科学证据和 "客观 "事实为基础的,但这似乎正导致主观形式的知识越来越难以操作化。本文认为,这导致理论与实践之间的差距不断扩大,给参与式民主带来了严重后果。本文以规划哲学(知识理论)为分析框架,从理论和实践两个角度研究了这些发展。在 2021 年进行的半结构式访谈中,我们收集了公共和私营部门规划人员的见解,为后者提供了支持。我们的研究结果表明,从哲学角度更好地理解规划所处的世界,可以为理论和实践提供有意义的信息,并帮助规划师理解和把握上述趋势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mind the widening ‘theory–practice gap’? The retreat to positivism in planning practice
This article argues that recent times have seen a (re)intensification of positivist decision making in planning practice in England. Ostensibly underpinned by appeals to scientific evidence and ‘objective’ fact, it seems this is resulting in an increased difficulty in operationalising subjective forms of knowledge. This it is argued has led to a widening theory–practice gap which has serious consequences for participatory democracy. The paper uses planning philosophy (theories of knowledge) as an analytical framework with which to examine these developments from both a theoretical and practice perspective. The latter is supported by insights from public and private sector planners, gathered during semi-structured interviews in 2021. Our findings suggest that a better philosophical understanding of the world within which planning operates can meaningfully inform both theory and practice and help planners to make sense of and navigate the trends described above.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
TOWN PLANNING REVIEW
TOWN PLANNING REVIEW URBAN STUDIES-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Town Planning Review has been one of the world"s leading journals of urban and regional planning since its foundation in 1910. With an extensive international readership, TPR is a well established urban and regional planning journal, providing a principal forum for communication between researchers and students, policy analysts and practitioners. To mark TPR’s centenary in 2010, it is proposed to publish a series of ‘Centenary Papers’ -- review papers that record and reflect on the state of the art in a range of topics in the general field of town and regional planning.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信