Elisabete A. Silva, Patsy Healey, Neil Harris, and Pieter Van den Broeck
The argument for focusing on research in the planning discipline
This book focuses on ‘doing research’ within the discipline of spatial and regional planning and is written for those who may at some point be tasked with conducting research. Research takes many different forms and is carried out in a variety of different contexts. As a reader of this book, you may be a research student engaged in a doctoral programme in a planning school or an urban and regional studies department. Alternatively, you may be working on a postgradu-ate or undergradupostgradu-ate dissertation. You might be an established academic researcher new to the discipline of planning and wondering how to apply your skills and experience within the dis-cipline, given its specifi c characteristics and traditions. You may even be working in a research institute and engaged in practical, applied research. You have perhaps identifi ed or even been assigned a ‘topic’ to research, and maybe you have some initial thoughts on how to study it.
It is quite possible that you have completed or are currently studying a course or module on
‘research design’ or ‘research methods’ as part of your studies and, in doing so, have encountered the expansive literature on social science research methods (see, e.g., Outhwaite and Turner, 2007; Lewis-Beck et al., 2004; Somekh and Lewin, 2011; Ruane, 2004).
This research methods literature is helpful, but it is generalised and is intended to apply across a very wide spectrum of different disciplines. Some of the material in these texts may draw on specifi c disciplines in describing the application of specifi c research designs or methods, but these often feel a little distant from our own disciplinary interest in planning. Your exploration of this literature also identifi es that some subjects have specifi c accounts of how research design and methods apply to their fi eld, including criminal justice, psychology, nursing and social work (see respectively Logio et al., 2008; Lyons and Coyle, 2008; Clamp et al., 2004; Thyer, 2010).
You have not, however, come across much discussion of research and research methods in the planning fi eld, and the closest consideration to this comes from other spatial disciplines, such as human geography (Flowerdew and Martin, 2005), with which there are shared characteristics, but also important differences. We argue that these differences matter, and a failure to focus on and address the specifi cities of doing research in the planning discipline has several important consequences. These consequences include the challenge that students and researchers face in exploring and using the full range of research methods that may be applied to understand the wide subject matter that is related to planning, as well as a lack of attentiveness to the interaction
between disciplinary subject matter and the research methods applied in the course of fi nding out about the world. There are nevertheless a few papers and appendices in which planning researchers usefully describe their approach to the work they have done (Roy, 2003; Healey, 2007). Yet there is no consolidated text which is focused specifi cally on the challenges of under-taking research inquiry in the planning fi eld. So, this book has been written to address this gap by providing an opportunity to refl ect on research within our discipline. The book should be read alongside the research literature in the social sciences, which is rich and valuable, and to which some planning scholars, such as Bent Flyvbjerg (2001, 2012), have made strong contribu-tions. This book is designed to act as a ‘bridge’ between the wider research design and methods literature and the specifi cities of our fi eld. This is what we have sought to provide in this text, with specially commissioned chapters in which we have asked authors to focus particularly on the ‘craft’ of doing research work in the planning fi eld, the diversity of methods that are applied in our fi eld, and the particular challenges generated by ‘doing research’ in planning.
The specifi cities of doing research in spatial and regional planning
The purpose of this section is to set out a basic, working defi nition of what ‘research’ is and explore some of the defi ning characteristics of research in the planning discipline. One of the most widely used defi nitions of research is that set out in what is known as the Frascati Manual (OECD, 2002). The defi nition is one that was devised to evaluate research and development (R&D) activity, but it has been adopted and applied more widely, including in academic insti-tutions. The manual states that research comprises “creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications” (p. 30). In the exercise designed to assess the research quality of academic institutions in the United Kingdom, research is defi ned as “a process of investigation leading to new insights, effectively shared” (Higher Edu-cation Funding Council for England, 2011). There are several important components within these two defi nitions. There is an emphasis on knowledge, which may be new knowledge or, as implied in the second defi nition, knowledge that is applied in such a way that it leads to new insights. This knowledge is acquired through a process of investigation. One of the defi n-ing features of this investigation is its systematic nature, and this sets it apart from more general inquiry and other forms of investigation or ‘fi nding out’ about the world. Systematic investiga-tion implies careful and thoughtful design of the processes by which data is gathered, a clear conceptual framework to guide collection and analysis of data, and a general sense of rigour and craft in the overall conduct of research activity. The two defi nitions, when taken together, also emphasise that research is both an interactive process – with an emphasis on that knowledge being ‘shared’ – and a very practical one, with an emphasis on ‘application’ of knowledge.
It is this last feature of research – the ‘application’ of knowledge acquired through the process of investigation – that is an especially important one for the planning discipline. Many people who start a research study from a planning background want their work to contribute to solving some problem in the practical world. Some even hope that, through their research, they can pro-duce a policy proposal or even a plan for a specifi c situation. So our fi eld is defi ned by a practice focus. There are endless debates about how best to describe this focus, and there is never likely to be a single answer. For our purposes, we have taken ‘planning activity’ to be a form of collec-tive action centred around the development of place futures (Healey 2010; Albrechts 2004). It is, in effect, a form of place governance and it involves processes which bring knowledge to bear on action possibilities (Friedmann, 1987). And, as many emphasise these days, the knowledge involved not only is based on forms of systematic inquiry that underpin the formal defi nitions
Introduction
of research outlined earlier – that is, ‘scientifi cally-robust’ knowledge claims – but also draws in all kinds of experiential, practical and ‘local’ knowledge (Schön, 1983).
So what role does systematic inquiry play in the planning fi eld? The contributions to this book offer many suggestions and they are not always consistent. To generalise, systematic research inquiry both consolidates and evaluates experiences (what works, for whom, what is at stake – why, when, where, how) and develops and evaluates techniques, tools, future option concepts and practice habits. Much planning research also has a descriptive and explanatory purpose, asking questions about ‘what is going on here’. In this respect planning research is often much closer to research inquiry traditions in the social science and natural science fi elds. Yet, despite the alignment of much planning research with the traditions of broader, social scientifi c or natural scientifi c research, there are characteristics that make the activity of doing research in the planning discipline a distinctive one. None of these characteristics are exclusive to the planning discipline. It is, we argue, the combination and prominence of these characteristics, and the way in which they frame planning research activity, that result in a distinctive environment in which planning researchers go about their systematic investigation, and the generation and application of knowledge. One of the principal contributions of this book is to encourage further refl ection on the traditions and practices of our research discipline. In our own refl ections on this issue as editors, we have identifi ed the following as the key disciplinary specifi cities or characteristics of doing planning research, many of which refl ect broader issues of relevance to planning:
• An action orientation:1 This demands that attention is given in our research activities to the social and political reasons for undertaking a research project in the fi rst place, and to the ambition that research fi ndings will ‘make a difference’ in relation to these reasons.
• An explicit normative focus:2 Doing planning research involves recognising the values which generate the research interest and underpin the reasons in some cases for wanting to ‘make a difference’ in the practical world. Planning research is always carried out within a complex framework of different interests’ views about ‘what should be’. Research, as an activity gen-erating knowledge and insight, is therefore inevitably engaged in shaping power relations.
• A recognition that systematically produced knowledge has value in shaping and evaluating inter-ventions in the practical world
• A substantive interest in place qualities and spatial relations:3 as a result of recognising that many different forces and relations shape how place qualities are produced, and that what happens in one place has complex connections with what happens elsewhere. In this respect, plan-ning research shares some characteristics with other spatial disciplines, such as geography.
• A sensitivity to disciplinary and paradigmatic diversity:4 that demands attention to the episte-mological and ontological underpinnings of different research traditions, both within and outside of the immediate discipline of planning.
• A recognition of the political-institutional contexts within which knowledge is produced and used, requiring an awareness of who is likely to use the knowledge produced and how it might be used.
• A sensitivity to the ethical dimensions of knowledge production and use,:5 involving explicit atten-tion to what and whose values are in play, and to the ethical conduct of a researcher.
The various contributors to this book emphasise different elements of the foregoing list in their individual chapters. So, for example, some will focus on elaborating the specifi c political-institutional contexts for their own research, while others demonstrate a clear, transformative intent through their research and aim to change planning practices in their respective countries.
Yet we maintain that a researcher engaged in researching planning should be aware of and understand all of these specifi cities, and demonstrate an appreciation of their implications for the design and conduct of research.
These specifi cities of conducting research in the planning discipline can make problematic some of the components of the formal defi nitions of research which we introduced earlier. For example, undertaking systematic investigation often means narrowing an issue down in order to focus on key elements and relations, often referred to as the ‘unit of analysis’ (Yin, 2009; Reme-nyi, 2012). This can be very frustrating to a planner with a burning issue to investigate arising from some practical experience or purpose. In action mode, those of us working in the plan-ning fi eld need to be aware of multiple dimensions and relations as they impact on a particular practical issue. A key practical skill is the ability to ‘integrate’ and synthesise diverse concepts and elements into an idea, or plan or strategy with which to shape, explain and justify specifi c interventions.6 But in research mode, the emphasis shifts to in-depth exploration of maybe just one of the signifi cant relations. One of the greatest challenges for a researcher is working out the appropriate core focus of an investigation and what, for the purposes of the study, has to be left as part of the contextual penumbra.
The applied and practical nature of much planning research, and its action orientation, also has implications for the conduct of planning research. For example, it is often supposed that a PhD student and a researcher in an academic context are free agents in choosing and shaping their research topics and modes of inquiry. However, just as in other walks of life, this is rarely the case,7 and especially in the planning fi eld, systematic research is undertaken in all kinds of institutional contexts with all kinds of expectations placed on the researcher. While research-ers may be driven by their own motivations and the stimulation of research inquiry, we are all constrained in some way or other. Doctoral students have to pay attention to the demands of their funders, particularly if their doctoral studies are funded or partly funded by collaborating or sponsoring organisations, and to the concerns of their supervisors. Academics are encouraged to secure funding from outside sources, which generates demands and expectations which are often not easy to negotiate. Planning researchers may work in agencies and consultancies doing practi-cal planning work, demanding inquiries focused on their immediate needs. Specialist research institutes and specialist policy advice agencies may value systematic research activity by their staff, but will have particular agendas which will shape what is researched and how fi ndings are received. In the fi nal part of the book, we explore the tensions that these different research situa-tions create. All of them, however, demand careful ethical and sociopolitical sensitivity. Research ethics courses and texts often focus solely on the appropriate ways through which researchers should relate to research ‘subjects’ and the appropriate methods for relating evidence to fi ndings.
Especially in the planning fi eld, however, it is also important to pay attention to the ethics of the relation between research inquiry and the funders and users of research fi ndings.8 Planning researchers also need to be aware of the sociopolitical context for their and others’ research.
Research can be undertaken to sustain the status quo and the interests of sponsors, or it can be empowering and transformative. Consequently, what a researcher chooses to investigate, and what funders identify as their priorities for research, can never be regarded as neutral.
The organisation of the book
We have structured this book as a handbook for those engaged in research in the planning fi eld, including those doing so for the fi rst time. We hope it will also be helpful as a reminder and a prompt for more experienced researchers. A contribution to the richness of the planning fi eld
Introduction
lies in the range of inspirations and perspectives which people draw upon to select and inves-tigate specifi c research questions. Yet this makes organising a research handbook challenging.
The book has fi ve main parts, each of which may be read as a stand-alone series of chapters accompanied by an introduction. We start in Part 1 by introducing readers to the experiences of other researchers in a biographical way. We asked ourselves and a few others to refl ect on their own experiences of learning the craft of research in the planning fi eld. The purpose of these biographical chapters is to relay the differing pathways that the contributors have taken through their research careers. They are also written with the hope of sharing our positive experiences with early career researchers, and providing some guidance on overcoming some of the challenges of doing research on planning. We conclude this part with a revised version of a paper by John Forester on the craft of academic writing. The act of writing is an important part of doing research, and is one of several means of ensuring that knowledge and insights are effectively shared.
The remaining four parts of the book consist of specially commissioned chapters by research-ers working in various parts of the world. A review of books of abstracts and conference pro-grammes of AESOP, ACSP and WPSC conferences during the past fi ve years allowed us to shortlist research active planners and also to identify current trends and topics in research meth-ods; once this initial list of potential authors was built, authors were invited to submit a short abstract. The abstracts were later reviewed by us and feedback was provided on how to build the chapters. In Part 2, we consider a range of general questions about the practice of research inquiry and its specifi cities in our fi eld, as well as examples of researchers linking a particular conceptual tradition with a specifi c research strategy or method. The chapters address key issues from the fundamentals of overall research design, through to ethics in planning research and comparative research between different planning systems. It is the important questions raised in this part of the book that are often overlooked in the urgency to identify appropriate or specifi c research methods. A well-founded research study will explore these more fundamental ques-tions, many of which open up issues of epistemological and ontological position. The chapters in this part of the book will also encourage readers to appreciate that planning is a discipline characterised by very different and sometimes confl icting perspectives on the function and conduct of research.
The most challenging issue for the organisation of the book has been how to organise the many and varied contributions on the use of specifi c methods in planning research. There are texts in planning theory which map out different theoretical traditions and perspectives,9 which we might have adopted to structure the book. Yet the methodological implications of embrac-ing these different plannembrac-ing theories are often implicit and are not always clearly articulated in the relevant literature. In some cases, different planning theories may share epistemological foundations, and may therefore raise similar issues of research design and selection of meth-ods. In other cases, the adoption of similar methods may obscure quite different epistemologi-cal bases, resulting in very different approaches and outputs. Consequently, organising the text around particular theoretical themes is problematic and, given the diversity of perspectives of the contributors, would have resulted in a false and inappropriate partitioning of the contri-butions. The approach that we have therefore adopted to organising the main element of the book is to collate contributions according to their use of quantitative or qualitative methods in Parts 3 and 4 of the book. This is a very traditional and established way of categorising research methods in the social science literature.10 There is no intellectual logic to this division, as a
The most challenging issue for the organisation of the book has been how to organise the many and varied contributions on the use of specifi c methods in planning research. There are texts in planning theory which map out different theoretical traditions and perspectives,9 which we might have adopted to structure the book. Yet the methodological implications of embrac-ing these different plannembrac-ing theories are often implicit and are not always clearly articulated in the relevant literature. In some cases, different planning theories may share epistemological foundations, and may therefore raise similar issues of research design and selection of meth-ods. In other cases, the adoption of similar methods may obscure quite different epistemologi-cal bases, resulting in very different approaches and outputs. Consequently, organising the text around particular theoretical themes is problematic and, given the diversity of perspectives of the contributors, would have resulted in a false and inappropriate partitioning of the contri-butions. The approach that we have therefore adopted to organising the main element of the book is to collate contributions according to their use of quantitative or qualitative methods in Parts 3 and 4 of the book. This is a very traditional and established way of categorising research methods in the social science literature.10 There is no intellectual logic to this division, as a