An Experiential Approach to Research in Planning

Abstract

Research in planning as a design science Planning is not just concerned with understanding the world, but also, and fundamentally, with changing it. Academic research in planning should reflect this fact, which sets it apart from research in most natural and social sciences. These are primarily concerned with comprehending phenomena, and only secondarily and indirectly with influencing them (if at all). In this respect, research in planning appears closer to research in disciplines such as management, law, engineering, or medicine, which, in spite of great differences in their domains of application, are all primarily concerned with how to affect (rather than just describe and explain) their objects of study. Much academic research in planning does not seem, however, to acknowledge this. In this paper, we will argue why we believe so, and propose an approach to academic research in planning that might better reflect its primary concern with changing, rather than just understanding, planning practices. However, first we need to elaborate further on the notion of an orientation of research towards understanding as opposed to an orientation towards change, and on the implications of the difference. In order to distinguish it from the`explanatory science' type of research that all research tends to be identified and compared with, Van Aken (2004; 2005) calls change-oriented research`design science' [inspired by Simon (1969); see also Scho« n (1983)]. What design sciences have in common is the awareness that``understanding a problem is only halfway to solving it. The second step is to develop and test

Accessibility instruments in planning practice: Bridging the implementation gap

“…The research design combines elements of a classical multiple case study, whereby each accessibility instrument is used and analysed within one local planning setting, with an experiential case study logic (Straatemeier et al, 2010). In an experiential case study design, the researcher does not only observe, but also actively intervenes in planning practice.…”

“…On the other hand, developers of planning support instruments have little awareness of the demand requirements. The effective use of PSS is currently suffering from a 'rigour-relevance dilemma' (Andriessen 2004, Fincham and Clark 2009, Straatemeier et al 2010, with developers mainly concerned with scientific rigour and users mainly concerned with practical relevance, leading to diverging paths, where each group fails to see and appreciate the perspective of the other. As a result, developers produce planning tools based on abstract ideas far removed from actual practice -rather than a clear, shared understanding of the needs and demands of specific planning contexts.…”

Strengths and weaknesses of accessibility instruments in planning practice: technological rules based on experiential workshops

“…Instead we develop context-sensitive rules that illustrate the complex relations between interventions, contexts and outcomes. These so-called technologic rules follow the CIMO logic: 'In a certain context (C), an intervention (I) through specific mechanisms (M) leads to a certain outcome (O)' (Denyer, Tranfield, & van Aken, 2008;Pawson & Tilley, 1997;Straatemeier et al, 2010;Van Aken, 2004). Building on the pragmatist and critical realist traditions, technological rules form a bridge between two ways of knowing: the academic, where these rules are tested as hypotheses, and practical knowledge (or phronesis, see Flyvbjerg, 2001), where the outputs are directly used to guide real-life interventions.…”

“…Then a discursive exploration of strengths and weaknesses of different accessibility instruments in different contexts is provided. This exploration does not aim for generalization, seeking instead to distil a number of technological rules that can be tested in future research (following van Aken, 2004;Pawson & Tilley, 1997;Straatemeier, Bertolini, te Brömmelstroet, & Hoetjes, 2010). In closing we discuss the experience-based case study methodology and provide input for improving accessibility instruments, in order to facilitate their adoption as a mainstream support technology in planning practice.…”

Leerproces voor planologisch wetenschappelijk onderzoek en de praktijk

“…Met deze leercyclus worden planologische problemen niet alleen begrijpelijk, maar wordt ook bijgedragen aan het genereren en testen van planologische innovaties in interactie met de praktijk (Te Brömmelstroet, 2010;Hoetjes, 2010;Chorus, 2012;Straatemeier, Bertolini, Te Brömmelstroet, & Hoetjes, 2010;Tan, 2013, Beukers, 2015 In het vervolg van dit artikel worden de twee onderzoeken in grote lijnen beschreven, en worden ze met elkaar vergeleken met betrekking tot de vraag hoe de vier fases van de leercyclus zijn ingevuld en hoe de interactie met de praktijk in de vier fases is geïnitieerd. Tot slot reflecteren we op de mogelijkheden en beperkingen van de leercyclus voor praktijkgericht onderzoek.…”