Planlamada Sosyal Bilimcinin Değişen Rolü: Toplumdan Biri Olmak

Anahtar Kelimeler:

sosyal bilimler

The Changing Role of Social Scientists in Urban Planning: To Become a Proactive Participant in Research

In this paper, by reviewing urban planning paradigms since World War II, I demonstrate how the role of social scientists has changed in accordance with global trends, theoretical argumentation in planning and the relationship of research with practice. I do this in reference to three general planning approaches, including physical, rational, and participatory. Then, I display how social scientists can transform real life planning processes into a change process through scientific inquiry. Social scientists can take an active role in planning as a proactive participant. They can moderate planning processes as a process of knowledge generation with the participation of local stakeholders. This can contribute to enhancing reflexive and dialogue-based, democratic, socially sound, and effective planning. This kind of ‘insider’ position of social scientists calls for two main strengths in the generation of scientific knowledge. First, social scientists can develop a more complete map about real life processes when they are a part of those processes. This position can allow them to understand the local knowledge ‘in’ the process rather than to produce knowledge about the process ‘outside’ the process. Secondly, social scientists can contribute to reconstructing and moving the community’s situation forward toward a better state. Social scientists who take an insider position in planning should ensure the fulfillment of three conditions in the process of knowledge generation in planning. The first condition is the participation of interested stakeholders. Shared local knowledge should reflect all interests in the community. The second condition plays the role of serving as a catalyzing factor in the generation of actionable knowledge and in taking an action. The third condition fosters the commitment of local stakeholders in the process as well as in the collectively generated local decisions as a result of this process.

Keywords:

social sciences,

PDF

___

ALBRECHTS, L. (2004) Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design (31) 743-758.
ALBRECHTS, L., HEALEY, P. and KUNZMANN, K. R. (2003) Strategic spatial planning and regional governance in Europe, Journal of the American Planning Association (69:2) 113–129.
ALEXANDER, C. (1965) A city is not a tree, Architectural Forum (122:1) 58- 61.
ARCHIBUGI, F. (2004) Planning theory: reconstruction or requiem for planning? European Planning Studies (12:3) 425-445.
ARGYRIS, C, PUTNAM, R. and McCLAIN, S. D. (1985) Action Science: Concepts, Methods, and Skills for Research and Intervention, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
ARNSTEIN, S. R. (1969) A ladder of citizen participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35 (July) 216-224.
ASHEIM, B. T. (1995) Industrial districts and learning regions: a condition for prosperity? STEP - report no. 3, Oslo. Ayrıca: European Planning Studies (4:4) 1996, 379-400.
ATAÖV, A. (2007a) When spatial planning becomes common knowledge: An action research perspective, Journal of Planning Literature (hakemlik sürecinde).
ATAÖV, A. (2007b) Constructing co-generative search processes: Rethinking urban planning / making urban plans actionable, European Planning Studies (basılacak).
ATAÖV, T. (2006) Democracy, values and institutions: the essentials vs. the formality, World Symposiumon ‘The Prospects for Democracy’de sunulmuş bildiri, New York.
BAILEY, M. T. (1992) Do physicists use case studies? Thoughts on public administration research, Public Administration Review (52:1) 47-54.
von BERTALANFFY, L. (1968) General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, George Braziller, New York.
BURBY, R. J. (2003) Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government action, Journal of the American Planning Association (69:1) 33-49.
DEVLIN, K. and NASAR, J. L. (1989) The beauty and the beast: Some preliminary comparison of ‘high’ versus ‘popular’ residential architecture and public versus architect judgment of same, Journal of Environmental Psychology (9) 333-344.
DEWEY, J. (1991) Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
EGEV (1996) Ege Bölgesi StratejikPlanlama Raporu, EGEV, İzmir.
EMERY, M. (1999) Searching: The Theory and Practice of Making Cultural Change, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
EMERY, F. E. and TRIST, E. L. (1972) Towards a Social Ecology: Contextual Appreciation of the Future in the Present, Plenum Press, London and New York.
FAINSTEIN, S. S. (2005) Planning theory and the city, Journal of Planning Education and Research (25:2) 121-130.
FALUDI, A. (2000) Performance of spatial planning, Planning Practice and Research (15:4) 299-318.
FORESTER, J. F. (1999) The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes, MIT, Boston, MA.
FORESTER, J. F. (1989) Planning in the Face of Power, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
FRIEDMANN, J. (1998) Planning theory revisited, European Planning Studies (6:3) 245-254.
FRIEDMANN, J. et al. (2004) Strategic spatial planning and the longer range, Planning Theory and Practice (5:1) 49-67.
FLYVBJERG, B. (2002) Bringing power to planning research: One researcher’s praxis story, Journal of Planning Education and Research (21:4) 353-366.
FLYVBJERG, B. (2001) Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again, Cambridge University, Cambridge.
GANS, H. (1962) The Urban Villagers: Group and Class in the Life of Italian- Americans, Free, New York.
GANS, H. (1961) Planning and social life: Friendship and neighbour relations in suburb communities, Journal of the American Institute of Planners (27:2) 134-40.
GAVENTA, J. and CORNWALL, A. (2002) Power and knowledge, in P. Reason and H. Bradbury, eds., Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, Sage, London; 70-80.
GRAY, B. (1989) Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems, Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers, San Francisco.
GREENWOOD, D. J. and LEVIN, M. (1998) Introduction to action research: Social Research for Social Change, Sage, California.
GUSTAVSEN, B., HÅKON F. and OSCARSSON, B. (2001) Creating Connectedness: The Role of Social Research in Innovation Policy, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
HAGUE, C. and JENKINS, P. (2005) Place Identity, Participation, and Planning, Routledge, London.
HEALEY, P. (2004) Creativity and urban governance, Policy Studies (25:2) 97-102.
HEALEY, P. (2003) Collaborative planning in perspective, Planning Theory (2:2) 101-123.
HEALEY, P. (1999) Institutional analysis, communicative planning, and shaping places, Journal of Planning Education and Research (18:2) 111- 21.
HEALEY, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, Macmillan, Basingstoke.
HEALEY, P. (1996) The communicative work of development plans, in S. J. Mandelbaum, L. Mazza, and R. W. Burchell, eds., Explorations in Planning Theory, The State University of New Jersey, Rutgers, NJ; 263-288.
HERON, J. (1996) Co-operative Inquiry, Sage, London.
HUDSON, B. M. (1979) Comparison of current planning theories: Counterparts and contradictions, Journal of the American Planning Association (October) 387-398.
HUXHAM, C. (ed.) (1996) Creating Collaborative Advantage, Sage, London. HUXLEY, M. (2000) The limits of communicative planning, Journal of Planning Education and Research (19:4) 369-377.
KROPOTKIN, P. A. (2004) Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, Kessinger Publishing.
INNES, J. E. (1996) Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal, Journal of the American Planning Association (62) 460-472.
ISAKSEN, A. (1997) Regional clusters and competitiveness: the Norwegian case, European Planning Studies (5:1) 65-77.
GEERTZ, C. (1983) Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology, New York.
GODSCHALK, D. R. et al. (1994) Pulling Together: A Planning and Development Consensus-Building Manual, Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC.
GROAT, L. N. (1988) Contextual compatibility in architecture: An issue of personal taste? in Jack L. Nasar, ed., Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, and Application, 228-256, Cambridge University, New York.
JACOBS, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
KOHN, A. (1986) No Contest: The Case Against Competition, Houghton Mifflin Co.
LEWIN, K. (1943) Revolving Social Conflicts Harper, New York.
LINDBLOM, C. E. and COHEN, D. K. (1979) Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving. Yale University Press, New Haven.
LUNDVALL, B. Å. and JOHNSON, B. (1994) The learning economy, Journal of Industry Studies (1:2) 23-42.
MANDELBAUM, S. (1996) Introduction: The talk of the community, in S. Mandelbaum, L. Mazza, and R. Burchell, eds., xi-xix, Explorations in Planning Theory, Rutgers, New Jersey.
ÖZESMI, U. (2003) Doğa ile savaş ve barış: Ekolojik yaşamın ilkeleri, Buğday (21) 16-18.
PATEMAN, C. (1970) Participation and Democratic Theory, The University Press, Cambridge.
PURCELL, A. T. (1986) Environmental perception and affect: A schema discrepancy model, Environment and Behavior (18) 3-30.
REASON, P. and BRADBURY, H. (2001) Handbook of action research, Sage, London.
SİVİL TOPLUM GELİŞTİRME MERKEZİ (2007) E-kütüphane (24 Kasım 2005’de STGM’nin web sayfasından alındı: http://www.stgm.org. tr/)
TAYLOR, N. (1999) Urban Planning Theory Since 1945, Sage, London, UK.
TEKELİ, İ. (2006) Bir demokrasi projesi olarak kent planlama, Sivil Toplum Dergisi, n: 16.
TEKELİ, İ. and PINARCIOĞLU, M. (2004) Commitment model for regional planning: How to unlock frozen gears of stagnant regions, in T. Gök and T. Marszai, eds., Urban and Regional Development: Concepts and Experiences, Academy of Sciences, Warszawa; 9-28.
UNITED NATIONS (1996) Habitat Agenda and İstanbul Declaration: Goals and Principles, Commitments and Global Action Plan, United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II), İstanbul.
UHLIN, Ă.(2000) The concept of learning within the systems of innovation approaches, Concepts and Tranformation (5:3) 283-319.
WONDOLLECK, J. M. and STEVEN L. Y. (2000) Making collaboration work: Lessons form innovation in natural resource management, Island Press, Washington, DC.
WONG, C. (1998) Old wine in a new bottle? Planning methods and techniques since 1990’s, Planning Practice and Research (13:3) 221-236.