Theories and Planning Theories
Theories and Planning Theories
复制标题
理论与规划理论
DOI：
10.1080/01944363.2021.1885267
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
5.6
通讯作者：
Ann Forsyth
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ann Forsyth
这篇社论是关于一个难题的。《美国规划协会杂志》（Journal of the American Planning Association，JAPA）长期以来一直是出版规划理论著作的重要场所，但我作为编辑的谈话表明，许多学者并不这么认为。这在一定程度上是因为JAPA上发表的规划理论往往是在实践中有用的理论。正如我下面所概述的，JAPA对一系列规划理论领域有着广泛的兴趣，包括规划传统和过程，规划伦理，规划在世界上的作用，以及规划的思想史。JAPA的规划理论工作涵盖了几十年。当Klosterman（2011）发表他最新的计划理论课程内容时，他列出了超过10%的课程中的42篇阅读材料，其中29篇最初是期刊文章。其中13名来自日本航空航天局（Altshirt，1965年;阿恩斯坦，1969年;坎贝尔，1996年; Davidoff，1965年; Forester，1982年; Friedmann，1993年; Innes，1996年; Kaiser & Godschalk，1995年; Krumholz，1982年; Levy，1990年; Lucy，1988年; Mier，1994年; Sandercock &福赛斯，1992年）。没有其他报纸接近。JAPA的突出地位当然得益于其悠久的历史，但它仍然引人注目。然而，在最近的一篇JAPA文章中，Fang和Ewing（2020）使用全文文本挖掘来分析JAPA，沿着Journal of Planning Education and Research和Journal of Planning Literature。他们指出，近年来，这些通才期刊中的计划理论有所下降。这种明显的下降有几个原因。现在有几个专业期刊处理这个主题，最著名的规划理论，开始于2002年。当然，还有其他的取决于理论的味道。JAPA长期以来一直强调实践（福赛斯，2019）。当然，理论和实践并非不相容：理论指导实践，实践检验和塑造理论。事实上，在基础课程中使用的规划理论文章，如Klosterman（2011）所回顾的那些，很可能是那些希望成为实践规划师的学生，而不是主要是其他规划理论家的学生。正如我在下面所指出的，规划理论也涵盖了一系列主题，其定义是有争议的，这意味着JAPA是否被认为是一个关于规划理论的辩论论坛，部分是一个定义问题。Fang和Ewing（2020）自己的分析为更复杂地理解JAPA的规划理论内容提供了一些支持。在1990年至2004年的评估中，规划理论是他们评估的三种期刊中排名最高的学科。然而，在2010年之后，排名第一的主题是规划过程（Fang & Ewing，2020）。仅从2014年到2018年的JAPA来看，他们研究的最新时期，规划伦理排名第一（Fang & Ewing，2020，表A2）。正如我在《作为一个专业协会的期刊》中所解释的那样，JAPA寻求与实践相关。然而，这并不排除《日本专利法》中的条款涉及理论。JAPA是一个家庭的规划理论工作，是访问和相关的规划从业人员。关于编辑：安福赛斯是哈佛大学城市规划的露丝和弗兰克斯坦顿教授。
This editorial is about a conundrum. The Journal of the American Planning Association (JAPA) has long been an important location for publishing work on planning theory, but my conversations as editor indicate that many academics do not see it as such. This is in part because the kind of planning theory published in JAPA tends to be theory that can be useful in practice. As I outline below, JAPA has a broad interest in a range of planning theory areas, including planning traditions and processes, planning ethics, the role of planning in the world, and planning’s intellectual history. JAPA’s planning theory work covers decades. When Klosterman (2011) published his most recent account of planning theory course content, he listed 42 readings in more than 10% of courses, 29 of which were originally journal articles. Of these, 13 were from JAPA (Altshuler, 1965; Arnstein, 1969; Campbell, 1996; Davidoff, 1965; Forester, 1982; Friedmann, 1993; Innes, 1996; Kaiser & Godschalk, 1995; Krumholz, 1982; Levy, 1990; Lucy, 1988; Mier, 1994; Sandercock & Forsyth, 1992). No other journal came close. JAPA’s prominence is certainly helped by its long history, but it is still striking. In a recent JAPA article, however, Fang and Ewing (2020) used full-article text mining to analyze JAPA along with the Journal of Planning Education and Research and the Journal of Planning Literature. They noted that there has been a drop in planning theory across these generalist journals in recent years. There are several reasons for this apparent drop-off. There are now several specialist journals dealing with the topic, most notable Planning Theory, started in 2002. There are certainly others depending on the flavor of theory. JAPA has for a long time emphasized practice (Forsyth, 2019). Theory and practice are not incompatible, of course: Theory informs practice, and practice tests and shapes theory. Indeed, the kinds of planning theory articles used in basic courses such as those reviewed by Klosterman (2011) are likely to be those that are accessible and relevant to students wishing to be practicing planners rather than mainly to other planning theorists. As I note below, planning theory also covers a range of topics, and its definition is contested, meaning that whether JAPA is considered as a forum for debates about planning theory is in part an issue of definition. Fang and Ewing’s (2020) own analysis provided some support for a more complex understanding of JAPA’s planning theory content. In that assessment, planning theory was the top-ranked subject across the three journals they assessed from 1990 to 2004. After 2010, however, the topranked topic was planning process (Fang & Ewing, 2020). Looking only at JAPA from 2014 to 2018, the latest period they examined, planning ethics was ranked number 1 (Fang & Ewing, 2020, Table A2). As I explain in the As the journal of a professional association, JAPA seeks to be relevant to practice. However, that does not preclude articles in JAPA from engaging theory. JAPA is a home for work in planning theory that is accessible and relevant to planning practitioners. ABOUT THE EDITOR: Ann Forsyth is the Ruth and Frank Stanton Professor of Urban Planning at Harvard University.