Revisión epistemológica de las significaciones creadas

The interdisciplinary⁶ character of planning research, including issues rooted in the humanities and social sciences, as well as in the natural sciences implies that planners and planning researchers bring with them different methodological traditions, theoretical frameworks of comprehension and epistemological positions (e.g. Naess & Saglie 2000). Due to this heterogeneity, planning researchers have to identify their positions in the field of science and, typically, at the intersection between different disciplines.

In his original theory of interest, Habermas (1971) presents the three distinct interests of the researcher in the pursuit of knowledge generation: technical interest in the empirical-analytic sciences, practical interest in the historical-hermeneutic sciences, and emancipatory interest in the critical reflective sciences. According to Habermas, practical interest refers to an orientation

6 The terms inter-, multi-, trans-, and cross-disciplinary research are often used without providing a clear distinction between them. The following interpretation is an attempt to clarify these terms, synthesised from 'Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research' (2004) by the National Academy of Sciences, and Weingart & Stehr (2000):

- Interdisciplinary research integrates information, techniques, concepts, and/or theories from two or more disciplines to advance fundamental understanding or to solve problems whose solutions are beyond the scope of a single discipline. This interaction may forge a new research field or discipline.

- Multidisciplinary research means research that involves more than a single discipline in which each discipline makes a separate contribution. They split apart unchanged when the work is done.

- Transdisciplinary approaches transcend the boundaries of conventional disciplines and search for new perspectives beyond those disciplines.

- Cross-disciplinarity represents a coordinated effort to cross disciplinary boundaries to explain one subject in the terms of another.

toward gaining understanding through interpretation. The research aim is specified as the "illumination of the understandings of the participants". In this study, my interest in knowledge generation is predominantly practical.

In connection with the practical interest in knowledge generation, the methodological orientation employed is primarily that of hermeneutic interpretation where understanding is emphasised. Hermeneutics suggests that prejudice and foreknowledge is the necessary starting point to our understanding. This implies that researchers need to be aware of how their own views and biases are to a large extent determined by their own culture and personal history (Myers 2009, with ref. to Gadamer 1976, 125).

Hermeneutics implies that the researcher does not stand outside the subject matter looking in. Myers (2009, 190) refers in this context to Giddens (1976, 146) who has described the notion of the double hermeneutic in social science: social researchers, as such, are also 'subjects' and are just as much interpreters of social situations as the people being studied.

Hermeneutics is an approach commonly used in planning research. As Naess

& Saglie (2000) point out, planning is a meaningful activity and plans consist of meaningful text, maps and drawings. Therefore, planning researchers generally seek the comprehension of plans and the intentions and meanings of the actors influencing a plan. The research focus may be on the understanding of either the built structures themselves or the processes and actors leading to the physical result.

In association with hermeneutics, Naess and Saglie (2000) also remind researchers that their own experience of the world constitutes the epistemological basis of their comprehension of the phenomenon subject to inquiry.

In this thesis, it is evident that my background and experience as an urban planning and design professional has affected the formulation of the research problem and will also have an influence on the whole research process leading to the results and conclusions. I am also aware that my interpretations are connected to the fact that my thinking is deeply rooted in the prevailing culture of planning in Finland. In addition, as the double hermeneutic concept suggests, I must form a comprehension of other people’s comprehension, e.g.

how various actors understand their roles in connection with the preparation of

a plan, which can be a complicated task. In order to avoid the risk of an excessive bias, my intention is to unfold the research process and my scientific reasoning in a sufficiently detailed and consequential manner.

This study concentrates on the processes of urban planning and implementation that lead to the development of a new urban area. In addition to the hermeneutic approach of understanding the current situation, this study also aims to suggest improvements to this process. In this sense, the approach of this study can be called normative (see e.g. Mäntysalo 2000, 17).

 /RJLFRIUHDVRQLQJ

Pettigrew (1997, 344) discusses the nature of process research and claims that it is in the constantly iterating cycle of deduction and induction that the real creative process of the research takes place. The deductive structuring is the prelude to a more open-ended process of inductive reasoning and pattern recognition, and these have to go hand in hand. Relating to this, Pettigrew makes an important remark: "Few process scholars enter the field with an empty head waiting to be filled with evidence. Scholars are not just scientists, they remain obstinately human beings and as such are carriers of assumptions, values and frames of reference which guide what they are capable of seeing and not seeing." Pettigrew admits that his own inclination over time has been to increase the deductive component in what he calls the inseparable balancing act of deduction and induction in process work.

The traditional hypothetico-deductive approach may sometimes be used in planning research. Hypothetico-deductive research tests and improves scientific theories. From the theories, hypotheses are first derived and then, according to the empirical data, these hypotheses may be reinforced or falsified (Whewell 1840, Hempel 1965, in Ketokivi & Mantere 2010, 318). In social sciences, however, clear dichotomies are rare, but it is more often a question of varying degrees in the strength of relationships. According to Naess and Saglie (2000), this also applies to planning research. They refer, however, to abduction (Peirce 1932, in Naess & Saglie 2000, 743) as an approach more suitable to a large field of planning research.

The problem issues addressed in planning research often bring forth the observation that previous research and established theories provide little guidance to the development of hypotheses. Naess and Saglie (2000, 743)

describe this situation as follows: "The research takes as its point of departure a puzzling or surprising fact that cannot be explained by our existing knowledge.

The researcher then tries to imagine possible factors due to which the surprising phenomenon would be explainable." This kind of situation benefits from the abductive logic of reasoning.

The abductive approach stems from Peirce's insight that many great advances in science neither followed the pattern of deduction nor of induction (Niiniluoto 1999, S436). The abductive approach differs from deduction and induction in its inference. This difference can be explained in the following simplified way:

The logical sequence of deductive research is from rule and case to result, whereas inductive logic follows the pattern from cases and result to rule. The abductive approach follows yet another path, namely from result and rule to cases (Niiniluoto 1999, S437).

The objective of abductive reasoning is not to invent rules but to search for explanations. Thus, abduction consists of the following inference steps: 1) studying facts and 2) devising a theory 3) to explain them (Peirce, in Niiniluoto 1999, S439). Abductive research starts with a real-life observation of a 'surprising fact' (=result). The research aims to invent cases by searching for suitable theories (=rules) that could, when applied to the cases, explain the result.

Abductive reasoning is found to be very suitable for case studies and action research due to the simultaneous data collection and theory development in both methods. In the field of urban planning, abductive reasoning has previously been applied by e.g. Nilsson (2001) in her study concerning planning for sustainable development. Abductive reasoning is thus applied in this research.

The scientific reasoning in this thesis proceeds according to the following logic presented in Fig. 2:

- The research starts with the observation and description of a practical problem ('the surprising fact'): In the urban development process, innovative ideas often do not reach implementation (1). This practical problem is elaborated through an empirically based process model M1 to discover the root causes for the problem (2).

Figure 2. The reasoning process of the thesis

- The problem is linked to existing theories of urban planning, whereupon a lack of a viable existing theory to solve the problem is perceived (3). Four relevant theoretical approaches are justified as applicable to urban development, and four research questions are formulated that lead the literature review (4).

- In the case studies of selected urban development processes, innovative methods and practices are identified (5) and empirically categorised with reference to the root causes of the problem (6).

- The literature review of the four theoretical approaches is synthesised into corresponding four frameworks of theory elements (7).

- The innovative features in each case are linked to the theory elements of the four theoretical approaches . The explanatory power of each theory

Observation and description of the problem Categorisation

element with regard to the innovative features is evaluated, and theoretically discussed and contextualised in urban development (8). The answers to the research questions are formulated as propositions for a coherent and innovative urban development process. Cross-case analyses of the propositions are conducted, and critical contingencies are discussed (9).

- The theoretical elements and the propositions are clustered into hypotheses pursuing to eliminate the root causes of the practical problem (9). Derived from the hypotheses, process design principles are synthesised for an innovative process of networked development for a new urban area (model M2), aimed to solve the practical problem. Practical guidelines for the application of the model M2 are presented, based on the data collected in the case studies (11).

- The model M2 is a normative, but hypothetical model. It has to be further tested in new urban development cases in practice, and researched for its effects and contingencies.

 &KRLFHRIUHVHDUFKVWUDWHJ\

Different epistemological positions are represented within the field of planning research, and this has led to incessant discussions regarding the use of quantitative versus qualitative research (e.g. Naess & Saglie 2000, 735). It is, however, evident that the research strategy should depend on the research problem addressed.

In this study, qualitative research has been chosen as the overall research strategy for several reasons. Qualitative research methods were developed in the social sciences to enable researchers to study social and cultural phenomena that are hard to study with quantitative methods and tools. Qualitative data is gathered and used to understand people, their motivations and actions, in their broader context. The planning process of an urban area may also be considered as such a phenomenon that has to be studied qualitatively in its context in order to understand it.

It is often claimed that the major disadvantage of qualitative research is that it does not allow for generalisation. However, Yin (1984) argues that it is possible to generalise from qualitative research to theory. Eisenhardt (1989) adds that

theory developed from case study research is likely to have important strengths like novelty, testability, and empirical validity, arising from the intimate linkage with empirical evidence.

Among the wide scope of qualitative methods, the case study research method has been applied in this study. The advantage of the case study approach is that it enables the capturing of the nature and complexity of the phenomenon studied, and also provides understanding of the dynamics within its setting (e.g.

Yin 1984/2003). The case study method applied in this study is presented in greater detail in Chapter 5, together with the data collection and data analysis methods.

Case studies are often conducted as action research. Action research aims both at solving a practical problem in the case at hand, and at contributing to science. Consequently, an action researcher participates actively in a development effort, and simultaneously, collects data for scientific analysis and theory building (Gummesson, 2000). The distinctive feature of action research among other qualitative methods is that the researcher deliberately intervenes while at the same time studying the effect of that intervention (Myers 2009, 57).

According to Yin (1984/2003), a case study inquiry always relies on multiple sources of evidence, with data needing to converge in a triangulating fashion. As a positivist researcher, Yin recommends that the prior development of theoretical propositions or hypotheses should guide data collection and analysis.

As a comment on this, Myers (2009, 75-76) points out that interpretive case study research does not necessarily require the use of propositions or hypotheses. This study follows the interpretative case study approach.

Assessment criteria for the research

The quality of scientific research has traditionally been evaluated through the criteria of validity, reliability, and objectivity. Validity in case study research can be evaluated internally and externally (e.g. Yin 1984/2003). Internal validity refers to the extent to which the study establishes how things really are and really work. External validity addresses the generalisability of the study, i.e. the extent to which the results can be applied in other contexts or with other subjects. Reliability refers to the repeatability of the study and objectivity responds to the demand for the neutrality of the researcher.

The inconvenience with the above criteria is that they rather reflect the requirements of quantitative research. Lincoln and Guba (1985, 300) have defined parallel criteria that better meet the requirements of qualitative research. These criteria for the trustworthiness of research are credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Lincoln and Guba (1985, 301-331) also suggest means by which these criteria can be operationalised.

Credibility (uskottavuus) can be increased by e.g. prolonged engagement, persistent observation, and triangulation. Transferability (siirrettävyys) is reinforced by providing a detailed description of the data and of the context of the study. Dependability (käyttövarmuus) and confirmability (vahvistettavuus) measure the stability and objectivity of the study. They can be established by a consistent research procedure that follows an explicit logic of reasoning.

This research and its results are evaluated in Chapter 10, where also the validity, reliability and limitations of the research are assessed.