443506
BrooksJournal of Planning Education and Research
JPE32210.1177/0739456X12443506Wu and
Editorial
The Engagement of Planning
Scholarship with Practice:
Brief Introduction to Symposium
Weiping Wu1 and Michael Brooks2
In a perfect world, one might expect to find a smooth and sym-
biotic relationship between the realms of planning scholarship
and planning practice. In that world, scholars would regularly
generate new knowledge regarding the nature of human settle-
ments and the processes by which they are planned. Practitio-
ners, in turn, would eagerly consume that knowledge and
incorporate it into their daily professional activities, while
simultaneously generating still more fodder for research.
In our less-than-perfect world, of course, the roads connect-
ing scholarship and practice are somewhat bumpier. Indeed,
the two sets of activities sometimes appear to reflect two
entirely different worlds, each with its own distinctive culture.
Academia values (and, more importantly, rewards) research
that leads to publication in scholarly books and journals. The
world of planning practice, on the other hand, features political
and professional realities that seem to leave little time and
energy for immersion in the writings of university-based schol-
ars. Reflecting these different orientations, practitioners are
frequently heard to grumble that the fields major journals
provide little of relevance to their work; scholars, on the other
hand, often express the wish that practitioners would pay
more attention to the insights they generate!
In reality, the engagement of planning scholarship with
planning practice is far more complex and nuanced. Planning
scholarship takes many forms, and those forms vary widely
in their relevance to practice. Some scholars are deeply inter-
ested in practice and structure their research agendas accord-
ingly; some have interests that take them in other directions.
And yes, some practitioners regularly read scholarly books
and journals. Others, for a variety of reasons, do very little in
this regard, preferring to acquire new information and
insights largely from interaction with other practitioners.
But what does all of this add up to? What can be said, in a
more robust and systematic way, about the current relation-
ship between planning scholarship and planning practice? Is
there indeed a problem? If so, what can, and should, be done
about it?
This symposium is intended to address these questions in
a variety of ways. The coming together of the five papers
was largely accidental. Nearly all came to JPER without
coordination; the topic of engaging planning scholarship
with practice must have been (and indeed is) on the minds of
Journal of Planning Education and Research
32(2) 133134
The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X12443506
http://jpe.sagepub.com
many. Heather Campbells paper is a good starting point; she
provides a perceptive and provocative examination of the
relationship between knowledge and action. How, she asks,
do we translate knowledge about the world into decisions
regarding the actions that should be taken? Or, as she words
it, how do we move from is to ought? Analysis alone does
not answer this question; additional steps are needed, and she
describes the nature of those steps.
Intended primarily as advice for doctoral students and junior
faculty members, Matti Siemiatyckis paper presents a concep-
tual framework identifying five different roles that planning
scholars customarily assume: the scholar as independent out-
sider, as public planner, as contractor, as community-
based planner, and as activist. Each is described in detail,
complete with its implications for the kinds of goals being pur-
sued, expected audiences, sources of conflict, and even career
advancement.
Ann Forsyths Commentary also features a classification
system. Hers is structured somewhat differently, however,
describing four different cultures in planning research.
These cultures are differentiated by the kinds of problems on
which the research is focused, whether work at the scien-
tific frontier, dealing with practical applications, with
assessment of practice, or with the enduring questions of
planning. She notes that conflictor at least a lack of
mutual respectoften characterizes relationships between
the cultures, and she argues for greater mutual tolerance.
Bent Flyvbjerg is a strong advocate forand exemplar
ofplanning research that has an impact on public policy.
Using his research on megaproject planning as an example,
he focuses on the use of mass media as a strategy for rendering
ones research influential in the public decision-making arena.
He describes what he terms phronetic planning research, in
which strategic collaboration with media is an explicit
aspect of the methodology, and offers a number of suggestions
for those who are attracted to this mode of research.
Finally, Robert Beauregard addresses the symposiums
theme from another angle, arguing that planning scholarship,
and theory in particular, all too frequently ignore the
1
Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA
2
Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond,VA, USA
134 Journal of Planning Education and Research 32(2)
importance of the things, or physical objects, that constitute
the substance of planning activity. Instead, we tend to focus on
relationships among human actorsimportant, to be sure, but
insufficient for a full understanding of the planning process.
Thingsa number of examples are presented, ranging from
apartment buildings and parking spaces to site plans and com-
putersshape planning practice and are thus worthy of
more attention. For purposes of this symposium, of course, the
implication is that more attention to the physical objects cen-
tral to professional activity might indeed help to narrow the
gap between scholarship and practice.
A Final Word
With this issue, our term as co-editors comes to an end. It has
been an excellent experience for both of us. There are numer-
ous people to be thanked: the many fine planning (and
planning-related) scholars who have produced a steady stream
of papers for JPERs consideration; the army of hard-working
reviewers, without whom the entire enterprise would be
impossible; Luci Yamamoto, our Managing Editor, whose
diligent efforts on behalf of JPER have made our tasks easier
in so many ways; Katrin Anacker and Seymour Mandelbaum,
our Book Review Editors, without whom no JPER issue
would be complete; ACSPs officers, who have been fully
supportive at every turn; our Editorial Board, whose members
have truly cared for and supported our efforts; Bruce Stiftel
and Chris Silver, who volunteered many hours of otherwise
summer vacation time to help lead JPERs writing work-
shops; and the staff of SAGE, who have minded the fine prints
so professionally. We also want to thank each other; it has
been a smooth operation, with virtually no disagreements!
Our best wishes go to Subhro Guhathakurta and Nancey
Green Leigh, JPERs incoming co-editors. We know they will
continue to take the Journal onward and upward! It is gratify-
ing to see that they, like all of our predecessors, will devote the
time and stewardship needed to ensure the continued growth
of JPERs community of scholars.