EXPLORING THE ABSTRACTIONS IN THE PLANNING DEBATE INNESTHE EVOLUTION OF COMMUNICATIVE PLANNING THEORY Judith Innes in conversation with Leonard Machler & Dan Milz Leonard Machler › School of Community and Regional Planning, Te University of British Columbia, Canada Dan Milz › College of Urban Planning and Public Afairs, University of Illinois, Chicago › Centre for Earth and Environmental Science SUNY Plattsburgh AESOP Young Academics Booklet Series B THE EVOLUTION OF COMMUNICATIVE PLANNING THEORY Booklet 3 © Leonard Machler and Dan Milz, October 2015 ISBN 978-94-91937-16-3 Internal and cover design In Ontwerp, Willem Dijkstra, The Netherlands – Assen Digital access InPlanning Technical Team InPlanning Editor in Chief Gert de Roo AESOP YA Booklet Series Editors (in Chief) Mona Abdelwahab (Department of Architecture Engineering, AAST, Cairo) and Lauren Ugur AESOP YA Booklet Series B Editor Chandrima Mukhopadhyay and Chiara Belingardi Authors Leonard Machler and Dan Milz AESOP YA Booklet Series InPlanning Published by InPlanning Oude Kijk in ’t Jatstraat 6 9712 EG Groningen The Netherlands [email protected] www.inplanning.eu InPlanning is legally registered as cooperative under KvK 58997121. In Planning is the Platform supporting AESOP, the Association of European Schools of Planning, for sharing information on spatial planning. The AESOP YA Booklet series supports the publication and distribution of topics which are considered relevant by scholars, researchers and students within Schools of Planning. The AESOP YA Booklet series is part of the InPlanning portfolio of books, journals, posters, videos, documentaries and other information carriers. The AESOP YA Booklet series is available on the InPlanning App for tablets (iOS and Android) and via www.inplanning.eu. While this work is available as ‘open access’, it is also intellectual property and subject to copyright. All rights reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is encouraged, however permitted only under the provisions of the ‘Auteurswet’ (Copyright Law) of the 23th of September 1912, in its current Version. Reference has to be made to the author and to InPlanning, the publisher of the booklet, from which material is being used. Violations are liable to prosecution under Dutch Law. 2 PREFACE INNES THE EVOLUTION OF COMMUNICATIVE PLANNING THEORY Judith Innes in conversations with Leonard Machler and Dan Milz Leonard Machler › School of Community and Regional Planning, Te University of British Columbia, Canada Leonard Machler is a PhD candidate in Community and Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia. His research focuses on housing, transportation and residential preferences for Smart Growth communities. Dan Milz › College of Urban Planning and Public Afairs University of Illinois, Chicago Dan Milz is an Assistant Professor of Environmental Planning at Center for Earth and Environmental Science, SUNY Plattsburgh. He recently completed his PhD in Urban Planning and Policy at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He studies collaborative environmental planning, with a special emphasis on water resources. He will join the Centre for Earth and Environmental Science at SUNY at Plattsburgh from Fall 2015. INNES – THE EVOLUTION OF COMMUNICATIVE PLANNING THEORY 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Working on a biography of Judith Innes has been a terrifc experience for both of us. It would not have been possible without the help of several people, who we would like to acknowledge. Many of the ideas that inform this booklet were germinated in a paper Leonard wrote for Leonie Sandercock’s planning theory class several years earlier. He would like to thank Sandercock not only for providing feedback that guided the development of the booklet you see, but also for recommending him to the editors of AESOP’s Young Academics series. Likewise, Dan would like to thank Charles Hoch for recommending him to the editors and for encouraging him to participate. We would also like to acknowledge the help of our interviewees: David Booher, Bruce Goldstein, Patsy Healy and Larry Susskind who provided thoughtful responses to our questions and shed new light on Innes’ theories. Without the help of Chandrima Mukhopadhyay this booklet would never have been completed; Chandrima tirelessly answered all our [many] questions and guided us through the submission and writing process. Finally, we would like to thank Judith Innes. It is a rare treat to work so closely with a scholar who has had such a profound infuence on you in so many ways: not just your work, but your writing style and the way you frame your thoughts. Innes provided us with thought-provoking feedback such that it felt like we were having a deep conversation with an old friend. We sincerely hope that all young academics have the opportunity to work on a project like the one we just did with Judith. Leonard Machler Dan Milz AESOP YOUNG ACADEMIC NETWORK 4 INNES – THE EVOLUTION OF COMMUNICATIVE PLANNING THEORY 5 INTRODUCING THE YA BOOKLET SERIES B Exploring the abstractions in the Planning Debate Tis series presents conversations with infuential planners in theory to refect on the path of their career and discuss how they inspired and addressed the development of planning theory. It aims to provide an introduction to their theories and ideas: what and how they contributed to the feld of planning; what and who infuenced the development of these theories; and how this implicated/ refected on planning debate in theory and/ or practice. Accordingly, it focuses on their contribution to academic literature. At the same time, it considers signifcant people and events that have infuenced the evolution of the planners’ ideas and themes. Our efort has been to present the thoughts in its purest form, and in simple way, making it easy to follow for the frst time readers, considering how difcult it is at times to transform ideas clearly. Te process of development of Series B and deciding on the content unfolded various ways of looking at “planning theory”. Firstly, as the frst booklet discusses, one way of understanding planning theory was considering “procedural theory” as planning theory proper, as claimed by Andreas Faludi. Faludi’s procedural theory was highly criticized to be far from its origin discipline ‘Urban Planning’. Secondly, there is at least a small group of scholars who readily identify planning theory as literature published in journals like Planning Teory. Tirdly, the other way of understanding planning theory is “abstractions in the planning debate”. As also refected in the above-mentioned description of the series, we consider the third defnition of planning theory for the purpose of this series. However, readers can expect each booklet to be infuenced by the particular scholars’ school of thought. Te development of the series is developed in two parts, Part 1 and 2, each comprising of 10,000 words. A YA author develops the frst part and the Part 2 is consisted of interviews with other scholars. However, both the parts are graphically compiled together and presented as a whole document in this publication. One of the challenges with this booklet series is that particularly Series B is dedicated to a scholar and NOT to a theory. Te challenging task is to summarize the eminent scholars’ long academic life’s contribution in 10,000 words and deciding on the content in terms of “planning theory”. Tis is the second publication of Series B, with many more in the process of making. We extend our heartfelt gratitude to all the senior scholars of present and forthcoming booklets who have not only enthusiastically agreed to take part in the project, but have also relentlessly supported our YA authors in spite of their very busy schedule. With thanks and regards ‘Conversations in Planning’ Booklet team AESOP YOUNG ACADEMIC NETWORK 6 FORWORD Video with Innes To play video click on this link https://youtu.be/m6E2FG4M3hw INNES – THE EVOLUTION OF COMMUNICATIVE PLANNING THEORY 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction page 8 2 Position and Perspective: Reading, Interpreting and Appreciating Innes’ Works page 10 3 In the Beginning page 12 4 Te Social Construction of Knowledge Period (1975-1980s) page 14 5 Communicative Planning Teory is Born (1980s-1990s) page 17 6 Collaborative Rationality and DIAD: Communicative Planning as a Craf (late 1990s – present) page 24 7 Responding to the Critics page 32 8 Where can Innes’ Teories be Applied? page 37 9 Conclusion page 40 Important works of Judith Innes page 41 Works Cited page 42 Appendix page 46 AESOP YOUNG ACADEMIC NETWORK 8 ABBREVIATIONS BATNA Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement CAS Complex Adaptive System CP Communicative Planning DIAD Diversity Interdependence and Authentic Dialogue theory MIT Massachussetts Institute of Technology INNES – THE EVOLUTION OF COMMUNICATIVE PLANNING THEORY 9 1 Introduction here are a number of questions that seem to nag almost every planning student: Why are some plans successful, while others are not? What makes a plan meaningful T and, therefore, useful to the people it afects? How can we design processes that help ensure that plans become meaningful and, therefore, actually used? In other words, how can we help create plans that will make a diference? Every planning student ought to be familiar with the work of Judith Innes because she has devoted her career to exploring these questions. Innes is not the only planning theorist to ask these questions, but, we will argue, Innes’ work provides perhaps the fullest, most comprehensive guidance for understanding how meaningful planning processes take place. As one of the leading theorists of “communicative planning”1(CP) theory, Innes believes that planners are not neutral experts that use knowledge that they learn in schools to solve problems. Nor does she believe that the knowledge used by all actors – including planners – is impartial. Instead, knowledge is “socially constructed”2, and the very legitimacy of that knowledge is dependent on how it was produced.