关于规划、规划理论和实践:批判性反思

IF 3.4 2区 经济学 Q1 REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING
E. Alexander
{"title":"关于规划、规划理论和实践:批判性反思","authors":"E. Alexander","doi":"10.1177/14730952211066341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The futility of defining planning suggests that there is no planning as a recognizable practice. Sociology of knowledge definitions imply three kinds of planning practices: (1) Generic “planning”—what people do when they are planning; (2) Knowledge-centered “something” (e.g., spatial) planning; and (3) Real planning practiced in specific contexts, from metro-regional planning for Jakarta to transportation planning for the Trans-Europe Network, and enacted in general contexts, for example, informal- or Southern planning. Planning theories are linked to different practices: generic “planning” theories and “something” (e.g., regional, community, environmental, or Southern) planning theories. Selected topics illustrate the “planning” theory discourse and spatial planning theories are briefly reviewed. Three generations of planning practice studies are reviewed: the first, a-theoretical; the second, the “practice movement,” who studied practice for their own theorizing; and the third, informed by practice theories. Five books about planning show how their planning theorist authors understand planning practice. While recognizing planning as diverse practices, they hardly apply “planning” theory to planning practices. “Planning” theories are divorced from enacted planning practices, “something” (e.g., spatial) planning theories include constructive adaptations of “planning” theories and paradigms, but knowledge about real planning practices is limited. Implications from these conclusions are drawn for planning theory, education, and practices.","PeriodicalId":47713,"journal":{"name":"Planning Theory","volume":"21 1","pages":"181 - 211"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On planning, planning theories, and practices: A critical reflection\",\"authors\":\"E. Alexander\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14730952211066341\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The futility of defining planning suggests that there is no planning as a recognizable practice. Sociology of knowledge definitions imply three kinds of planning practices: (1) Generic “planning”—what people do when they are planning; (2) Knowledge-centered “something” (e.g., spatial) planning; and (3) Real planning practiced in specific contexts, from metro-regional planning for Jakarta to transportation planning for the Trans-Europe Network, and enacted in general contexts, for example, informal- or Southern planning. Planning theories are linked to different practices: generic “planning” theories and “something” (e.g., regional, community, environmental, or Southern) planning theories. Selected topics illustrate the “planning” theory discourse and spatial planning theories are briefly reviewed. Three generations of planning practice studies are reviewed: the first, a-theoretical; the second, the “practice movement,” who studied practice for their own theorizing; and the third, informed by practice theories. Five books about planning show how their planning theorist authors understand planning practice. While recognizing planning as diverse practices, they hardly apply “planning” theory to planning practices. “Planning” theories are divorced from enacted planning practices, “something” (e.g., spatial) planning theories include constructive adaptations of “planning” theories and paradigms, but knowledge about real planning practices is limited. Implications from these conclusions are drawn for planning theory, education, and practices.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47713,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Planning Theory\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"181 - 211\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Planning Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952211066341\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Planning Theory","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952211066341","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

定义规划是徒劳的,这表明没有规划作为一种可识别的实践。知识社会学的定义暗示了三种规划实践:(1)一般的“规划”——人们在规划时所做的事情;(2)以知识为中心的“某物”(如空间)规划;(3)在特定背景下实施的实际规划,从雅加达的都市区域规划到跨欧洲网络的交通规划,并在一般背景下实施,例如非正式或南部规划。规划理论与不同的实践相联系:一般的“规划”理论和“某些”(例如,区域、社区、环境或南方)规划理论。选定的主题说明了“规划”理论话语和空间规划理论简要回顾。回顾了三代规划实践研究:第一代是理论性的;二是“实践运动”,他们研究实践是为了自己的理论化;第三,以实践理论为依据。五本关于规划的书展示了他们的规划理论家作者是如何理解规划实践的。虽然认识到规划是多种多样的实践,但他们很少将“规划”理论应用于规划实践。“规划”理论脱离了制定的规划实践,“某些”(如空间)规划理论包括对“规划”理论和范式的建设性改编,但关于实际规划实践的知识是有限的。这些结论为规划理论、教育和实践提供了启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
On planning, planning theories, and practices: A critical reflection
The futility of defining planning suggests that there is no planning as a recognizable practice. Sociology of knowledge definitions imply three kinds of planning practices: (1) Generic “planning”—what people do when they are planning; (2) Knowledge-centered “something” (e.g., spatial) planning; and (3) Real planning practiced in specific contexts, from metro-regional planning for Jakarta to transportation planning for the Trans-Europe Network, and enacted in general contexts, for example, informal- or Southern planning. Planning theories are linked to different practices: generic “planning” theories and “something” (e.g., regional, community, environmental, or Southern) planning theories. Selected topics illustrate the “planning” theory discourse and spatial planning theories are briefly reviewed. Three generations of planning practice studies are reviewed: the first, a-theoretical; the second, the “practice movement,” who studied practice for their own theorizing; and the third, informed by practice theories. Five books about planning show how their planning theorist authors understand planning practice. While recognizing planning as diverse practices, they hardly apply “planning” theory to planning practices. “Planning” theories are divorced from enacted planning practices, “something” (e.g., spatial) planning theories include constructive adaptations of “planning” theories and paradigms, but knowledge about real planning practices is limited. Implications from these conclusions are drawn for planning theory, education, and practices.
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
Planning Theory
Planning Theory REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
20.60%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Planning Theory is an international peer-reviewed forum for the critical exploration of planning theory. The journal publishes the very best research covering the latest debates and developments within the field. A core publication for planning theorists, the journal will also be of considerable interest to scholars of human geography, public administration, administrative science, sociology and anthropology.
×
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