As the practice that mediates between past, present and future, planning can be interpreted as a generic, ubiquitous activity and as a professional discipline that is conventionally linked to a bureaucratic process - and to alternative processes. The understanding or definition will depend, at least to some degree on who is making it and why. For me, planning was originally understood as a generic activity: planning backpacking trips; planning birthday parties. On a grander, public, scale, my introduction was through forestry plans and then park planning. It wasn't until I was doing studies for my Masters degree that 'planning theory' and its tie(emphasis) to urban planning became part of my understanding.
[R2]
[R3]
[R4]
As the practice that mediates between past, present and future, planning can be interpreted as a generic, ubiquitous activity and as a professional discipline that is conventionally linked to a bureaucratic process - and to alternative processes. It seems an obvious research direction for trying to understand how we might manifest change in the world - or how such manifestation is problematic. Such research might question what planning is and what it might be, but also whether or not the notion of planning is itself fundamentally flawed. The latter question arises from ethical and practical dimensions. In the first case, that the process will always involve decision-making exclusive of those affected and influenced. In the second case, that the process assumes a level of predictability and certainty that is impossible to achieve.
Planning is a generic, ubiquitous activity. It is also a professional discipline - conventionally linked to a bureaucratic process. This range presents a challenge theoretically, given the qustion of where - within this range - planning theory does and/or should fall. As with many other research areas covered in this dissertation, my approach inculdes discussion of the more general understanding, consideration of the range as well as discussion that addresses more specific aspects of theory:
- definitions of planning are many and varied although they contain some common characteristics
- Friedmann's conceptualization of planning as the link between knowledge and action, problematized
- categorizing planning theory provides a means for gaining some clarity and for raising some critique
- more specific discussion to be added...
[T2] ...
[T3]
As the practice that mediates between past, present and future, planning can be interpreted as a generic, ubiquitous activity and as a professional discipline that is conventionally linked to a bureaucratic process - and to alternative processes. Consider examples, from each end of the continuum:
- planning is: deciding whether or not to wear my rainjacket when I leave home in the morning, based on my expectations of the weather
- planning is: the comprehensively-targeted, bureaucratically-based, publicly-involved CORE process in BC
[E2]
[E3]
As the practice that mediates between past, present and future, planning can be interpreted as a generic, ubiquitous activity and as a professional discipline that is conventionally linked to a bureaucratic process - and to alternative processes. The 'manifestation of results' is the primary intention of planning, although the intent of this thread is really to consider the 'results' of discussion and their manifestation/implications in the 'real world'...
[M1]
[M2]
[M3]
this page created: 2003.11.01
substantive revisions: 2005.12.22
most recent substantive revisions: 2006.01.11
2003 - 2007