Exchange between researchers and practitioners in urban planning: achievable objective or a bridge too far?/The use of academic research in planning practice: who, what, where, when and how?/Bridging research and practice through collaboration: lessons from a joint working group/Getting the relationship between researchers and practitioners working/Art and urban planning: stimulating researcher, practitioner and community engagement/Collaboration between researchers and practitioners: Political and bureauc

Abstract

IntroductionThe relationship between research and practitioner endeavour is not easy and straightforward -it needs deliberative attention from both researchers and practitioners to thrive. There are a range of barriers in research and practitioner contexts to effective exchange and knowledge transfer. Some are general to broader social policy spheres, and others are more particularly associated with urban planning . Exchange between planning researchers and practitioners is essential to the development of both disciplinary knowledge and professional practice. But how effective and successful can it be? What can or should be achieved and how? Planning practice benefits from new perspectives and a new understanding of problems and potential solutions that flow from rigorous research. However, this should not be conflated with a "linear and utilitarian view of research" (Davoudi, 2006, p. 14). As with practice benefiting from research knowledge and evidence, research benefits from being informed by practice problems and practical knowledge, leading to broader issues of knowledge production in both spheres.Many barriers to exchange and knowledge transfer would appear to be ubiquitous across jurisdictions, such as the basic tension between the scholarly aspirations of research work and the context specific drivers of practice Davoudi, 2006); or the access barriers to scholarly publications, both in terms of their fee-for-service nature and the extended, dense, and often perceived 'elitist' language . However, there are also differences between jurisdictions, perhaps connected to differences in planning systems and professional cultures; or the result of locational specific efforts to bridge the research-practitioner divide.This Interface examines the issue of research-practitioner exchange in planning. We look at the issue of knowledge exchange by focusing on three challenges: access, use and collaboration. While not a strict linear hierarchy, these three challenges are interrelated and follow a roughly escalating order. This Interface then asks a range of researchers and practitioners to reflect on the value of research-practice exchange, drawing on their own experiences, which together provide a rich picture of current problems and challenges, while also highlighting successes and new ideas. We build on previous Interface issues looking at the theory-practice divide (MacDonald et al., 2014) and questions of reflection and interaction with planning practice (Balducci & Bertolini, 2007), providing a view from multiple jurisdictions, and focusing on a combination of researcher and practitioner voices. The contributions to this Interface article bring together different ideas and experiences of researcherpractitioner exchange from both academia and practice, across different jurisdictions, responding to the following provocative question: is the quality exchange between practitioners and researchers in urban planning an achievable objective or a bridge too far?The idea for this Interface article emerged from some mon...

Towards research impact: using place-based policy to develop new research methods for bridging the academic/policy divide

“…There is literature on both aspects: research impact (Haux, 2019;Penfield et al, 2014) and evidence-based policy (Banks, 2018;Boaz et al, 2008;Parsons, 2002). There is also debate in the literature as to whether either can be achieved and in what way (Haux, 2019;Head & Walter, 2015;Stead, 2016).…”

Linking Research and Practice in Planning

“…A central question is how to maintain and enhance research standards while helping practitioners take advantage of the substantial body of planning research. Practicing planners working on specific problems often struggle to make the connection between research and their own projects (Forsyth, 2016). To better support planners in conducting research in evidence-based or evidence-informed planning takes work.…”

Platforms of Change and Interstitial Spaces

“…In seeking to 'combine intellectual rigour with practical impact', the Journal has provided an important platform for theory and practice to interact and provide a place for critical reflection. A great example of this can be seen in an Interface piece in volume 17 on the research and practice exchange (Hurley et al, 2016). Planning Theory and Practice continues to provide an important platform and, no doubt, will continue to do so.…”