DOCUMENT RESUME ED 047 376 E, 003 286 AUTHOR L … · TITLE L Social-Action Approach for Planning...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 047 376 E, 003 286

AUTHOR Bolan, Richard S.; And OthersTITLE L Social-Action Approach for Planning Education.REPORT NO F-No-02SPUB DATE Oct 70NOTE 18p.; ?aper presented at American Thstitute of

Planners Annual Confer -in (Minneal,olis/St. Paul,October 18-21, 1970)

AVAILABLE FRCM Confer-In Papers, AI?, 917 Fifteenth Street, N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20005. (Paper No. 029, $1.50)

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

EDRS Price OF -$0.65 HC-$3.29City Planning, Community Involvement, *CurriculumDesign, *Curriculum DevelopmGn+- EducationalPhilosophy, *1;ducational Planning, Participation,*Program Planning, Social Action, Teaching Methods

The growing complexity of urban industrial societ.:;'necessitates adequate planning techniques to insure futurelivability, but traditional methods of training planners haveemphasized technology and ignored the human element. To remedy thisdeficiency, training programs should be expanded to include thesocial and political aspects of planning. Specific additions to aplanning curriculum should include human behavior and deielopment,social psychology, organization theory, reinforcement of organizingand political skills, and planning as a social process. A period ofinternship for planners with supervised and instructional activitiesin a field agency should be mandatory. (RA)

A SOCIAL-kCTION APPROACH FOR PLANNING :DUCATION

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUi4ENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM ME

PERSON OR Ok5ANIZATIGII ORIGINATING U. POINTS OF VIEW OR onion

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT Mild OFFICE OF EDUCATION

POSITION OR POLICY.

No. 029

Delivered at the 1970 AIP CONFER-IN, Minneapolis/St. Paul, October 1970

GD

0C'D

O

C44

Richard S. Bolan, M.C.P., AIP, Assistant ProfessorEdmund M. Burke, Ph.D., Associate ProfessorFrederick L. Ahearn, Jr., M.S.W., Assistant Professor

Community Orcanitation and Social Planotng ProgramBoston College Orcduate School of Social. WorkChestnut Hill, Mansachusetts 02167

1

Paper No. 029

A SOCIAL-ACTION APPROACH FOR PLANNING EDUCATION

Planning education is at a crossroads. The midsummer is-sue of the AlP Journal is an excellent barometer of the fermentnow brewing in VOaiversities. Both students and faculty. con-cerned with the relevancy of the profession, and its ability tomeet the growing needs of a complex urban society, have becomeincreasingly dissatisfied with educational results. Practitioners,too, seem perplexed as to what is the proper scope of planning andfind themselves dismayed at the current products of planning edu-cation. All the while the problems of the Lmerican City multiplyand grow in defiance of the best efforts of planning. Traditionalapproaches to planning education, we think, contribute to thisproblem.i.

Planning education can be characterized as an admixture ofthe philosophies of Plato, the Gestalt psychologists, and JohnDewey. Its strong utoQian strains and its "philosopher-king" syn-drone stem from Plato; its preoccupation with comprehensivenessderives from Gestalt concepts of insight and perceptual relation-ships of the whole providing learning characterized by an abruptleap trot. chaos to order (dubbed by critics as the "Anal" phenom-enon); and, finally, it embraces Dewey -type notions that problem-solving activity is the core of learning. 4 This is not unlikethe educational philosophy of architecture. Current notions ofcity planning curricula have not substantially altered thisapproach.

These philosophies of learning have tended to be fairlyeffective if one measures effectiveness in terms of the consider-able technical capaclUes city planners have acquired. One must,however, que ;tion whether they endow planning students with anadequate understanding of the effects of the planner's remediesupon groups and individualsparticularly upon groups and individ-uals in positions to accept or reject the remedies. How, in otherwords, does the planner assess the behavioral responses to hisplans.

Indeed, it is conceivable the the basic educational phil-osophies may in fact bloat the development of social capacity.Just as it has been sETArthat the learning of Latin may actuallyimpede learning another language, it may be posrible that thelearning of some skills in planning may inhibit the effectivelearning of other, equally important, skills. As cne example,development of skill in the use of simulation models as a toolof planning may be accompanied by the development of a mildlypatronizing attitude. This may evoke hostility toward the

1.

2

A Social-Action Approach for Planning Education Paper No. 029

planner by others involved in the planning process. Even moreimportant, the planner may not be consciously aware that this isoccurring. Furthermore, the requirements for learning this techni-cal tool may block the planner from successfully learning how torecognize and overcome such a problem.

Thus, the sophistication and superior reasoning that thetechnical tool may provide can vitiate the entire planning objec-tive. Both the tool and the planner suffer from social rejectionand are unable to combat it.

This paper suggests an alternative educational philosophyfor planning--one which might be termed a "social-action" ap-proach in which one bullds into the planning curriculum participa-tory arts as well as technical arts. Indeed, where conflict be-tween the two occurs, we would suggest that the development ofsocial capacities is of substantially higher priority based onthe premise that planning is primarily a social and politicalprocess in Waich the planner intervenes into a set oT-exiiTnig ornewly constructed social networks--an intervention which carrieswith it implications for both the structural and the esychologicaldimensions of such networks.n

The planner does not function as an isolated and unaccount-able individual, but is inevitably engaged in a collaborative ef-fort. Planning therefoe is a participatory process regardless ofthe setting in which it takes place. The presence of two or morepeople in the process generates collaboration, whether recognizedor not. This we suggest is planning's dominant feature and it isonly incidentally a technical task.

There is evidence that planners are becoming increasinglyaware of the participatory ntture of today;s planning Enterprises.Federal requirements, grass-roots domande for citizen participation,the development of multiple planning agencies, and the recentemergence of coalition planning suggest that participatory planningis a fact of life. Indeed, we would suggest that this has alwaysbeen so but rarely acknowledged.

Recent attempts to build it into planning education havebeen largely idiosyncratic episodes striving for "relevance" butnot really designed as part of an integrated educational process.

In approaching this new orientation to planning educationwe begin with a traditional outline of a planning curriculum andintroduce necessary additions which a "social-action" approachwould call for. We make no prejudgements as to what ought to bedropped from the traditional curriculum, so that our final resultis a course of study which would easily burst the normal two-year

2.

3


constraint for amasters degree program. Our own criteria fortrimming arises from our particular orientation to social planning.Other criteria might pertain in other programs.

Before examining curricul2m design in detail, it is impor-tant to note that we are talking directly to all planners. We arenot expressing an educational philosophy which applies cnly tosocial planners or c.tivocacy planners. Indeed, advocacy plannersexhibit an equal neglect in the development of participatory skills.They tend to be armed only with a laudable social motivation andthe traditional technical skills o: the city planner. This hasproven to be insufficient and Lisa Feattte's observationsgonadvocacy planning in many respects nirror these problems.- Regard-less of whether one is dealing with formal organizations (the"Establishment") or informal ncighborhood groups (in current Jar-gon "the People') an explicit recognitior. of role relationshipsand the dynamics of social interaction is essential.

THE TRADITIONAL PLANNING CURRICULUM

Shown on Figure 1 is the outline of the usual design of aplanning curriculum. Briefly, the course work is devoted to pro-viding the student with the basic knowledge of urban society to-gether with basic planning skills. It may also provide for areasof concentration or specialization at the student's discretion.How these concentrations are arranged will vary from program toprogram so that Figure 1 suggests only the kinds of arrangementscommonly found.

Planning programs will consist of traditional didacticmethods of instruction involving lectures an seminars. In addi-tion, problem-solving techniques are used such as studios andworkshops. In addition, gaming and other simulation techniquesare increasingly in vogue.

A further educational device is the planning internship.Yet, this is probably one of the more vexing and confused areasof planning education. Until recently, it was more honored inthe breach than in the practice. Even, today, attention is paidto it primarily because of student demandsdemands stemming froma desire to "get into the community" and engage in "real" work acopposed to "academic" work.

3li


NEW CURRICULUM FEATURES

Shown on Figure 2 is a revised curriculum design incorpor-ating those new elements arising from the new "social-action"approach. On it can be seen that in every area of curriculumdesign we have added new features. The rationale and explanationof these is as follows:

a. Core Knowledge Areas

One of the difficulties of core knowledge courses is thatthey are included in the curriculum for rather specific and narrowreasons - -they provide the student with an understanding of howland use patterns game about. Chapin's classic text provides aniiEgIent example. u Consequently, the usual approach to teachingthese courses leans heavily on the structural-functional traditionin the social sciences. Conceptualizations of Park and Burgess,Homer Hoyt, and Robert Haig9 are illustrations of the material thatlaid the groundwork. Contemporary conceptualizations of urbanstructure--even though vastly more sophisticated--still followthis tradition. This proves convenient since it relates verydirectly to urban geography and to explaining observed regularitiesin land use patters.

Even to the degree that planners have become interested inthe behavior of people, study of behavioral phenomena is alsooriented toward observing those regular patterns that interactwith the physical environment. In the early 1950's, a strongcorrelation was observed between land use and travel behavior andthis now underlies much of transportation planning and metropoli-tan planning. Subse pent investigations have been concernedwith consumer behavior and its relation to housing, commercialdevelopment, recreation facilities, and other activities." Timeand activity allocation g of families have been observed to explainland use determinants.le

Basically, this approach to the study of urban society,focuses on its implications for lsnd use and as a consequence,overlooks those aspects of behavior which have a key bearing onplanning. In short, core knowledge courses focus on the ob ectsbeing planned, not on gaining tnaight into the complete d men-sJons orTESplanning process. 15 This is a crucial deficiency.

Most city planners are totally unprepared for engaging ina planning process which recognizes the impact of human behavioron both the goals of planning and the participatory process.They possess no skill for such engagement because they have rela-tively little training for the task. Those planners who do have

4. 5


these skills either intuitively had them to begin with or gainedthem through long (and perhaps bitter) experience.

Thus, the "social-action" theory of planning educationwould Include core knowledge courses of the kind shown in Figure 2:human behavior, personality development, and life cycle needs,especially as these relate to the planning process.I4 urban psych-ology including effects of urban living on be0avi415 and psych-ological responses to urban design elements;10 organizational be-havior especially with regard to the conditioning effects of organ-izations on individuals and organizational images, identities androles;17 group dynamics;10 community decision-making;19 and politi-cal behavior.' with specific regard for the effects of political rolesand political forces on individual and group behavior. u All suchbody of theory and knowledge provide the necessary intellectualfoundation for cncaging in the planning process. Without suchknowledge, even the moet idealistically motivated advocate planneroperates with severe handicaps.

It is important to realize that as the demand for greaterand greater participation grows, we intrinsically become involvedtnaplanning process far more complex than we had imagined in thepast. These areas of core knowledge are the ones central to thisnew perception of planning. Participation cannot be understoodthrough structural-functional conceptions of society.

b. Basic Planning Skills

City planning in the past has developed an objective-sub-jective duality in method. Planners have made full use of ad-vances in the social sciences (especially economics and sociology)and have even cortriblIted heavily to their development. Whileit appeared for a short period in the late 1950's and early 1960'sthat social science approaches to planning might supplant urbandesign approaches, the latter seem to have recently developed newstrength and skills through strong support provided by urban renewaland the resurgence of central business district development. Thus,both'skills are very much in evidence today.

Both, however, share one serious difficulty in coping withthe kinds of demands now focused on the planner. Both are purelycognitive methods which seek to find the "one best solution' tocommunity problems. The fact that physical solutions are offeredto solve social problems is only a minor flaw compared to thepersistent habit of developing an optimal, "best", non-negotiablesolution. As much as plahners exhort themselves to developalternative plans, they seldom do, and meaningful alternativesusually arise as a result of social processes.

5. 6

4Asial-Action Approach for Planning Education Paper No. 029

Another feature of this duality of method is the wide gapthat still exists between the objective and subjective. Explicitsynthesis of these methods is usually omitted from the educationalprocess and left to the individual planner. In fact, of course,this synthesis seldom occurs in any serious way. Thus, for anygiven planning problem, different planners will come up withdifferent "best" solutions depending not only on their differencesin values, tastes, and priorities but also depending on theirpreferences in method. Thus, it is really difficult to assert inmost complex social settings which really is the "best" solution.Who, indeed, is most rational?

Experience seems to suggest that the "best" technical sol-ution to a problem is not necessarily the best social solution--or at least it is not necessarily tie solution that can be madesocially acceptable. This is partly explained by the fact thatthe planner's "best" solution is usually calculated in the plan-ner's terms and is imbued with his cyfr. (or his organization's)values. The methods, in effect, are :ndividualistic in nature.This means they ignore, in a fundameniaT sense, the complexity ofthe social process involved in arriving at social policy choices.Moreover, they tend to look at policy Choices in a very narrowvay and overlook the plurality and conflict of values surroundingany given situation.21 Negotiation, bargaining, compromise, andmutual adaptation and adjustment through collective interactioncomprises the real esqc.ice of the planning process. Even tech-nically "best" solutions find it difficult to survive this processwith all systems completely intact.

This means that the planner needs tc be schooled in a newarea of skill--planning process skills. These skills provide theplanner with the means and the techniques lo function effectivelywithin planning settings that includps the ?articipation of others.He needs to be able to apply these skills in facilitating the pro-gress of the process. This does tot imply nanipulation of partici-pants so that they come to agree with the planner. It does meanthe ability to function in relation to participants so that reason-ably utilitarian planning solutions are reached - -Group determinedsolutions which r) involve all participants, (2) secure theircommitment, and 3) gain their motivation to act.

The source of such skill; are not new. The fields of psych-ology, industrial management, public administration and communityorganization provide substantial experimental and practical ex-perience so that such skills can be coAceptualized around a bodyof theory almost as well developed as the structural -fmctionalconceptions of sociology, anthropology, and economics. .4e Asshown on Figure 2, such skills can be generalized as organizing

6.


skills, political skills, and skills related to maintaining theeffective functioning of groups for problem-solving.

c. Areas of Specialization

The opportunities for the planning student to specializein one or a number of areas of planning are numerous as Figure 1and Figure 2 illustrate. Clearly, however, the amount of newmaterial that we have introduced into the planning curriculum inthe "social-action" approach suggests an entirely new area ofmethod specialization--one which transcends previous concepts ofspecialization and asserts extra-technical skills. Such a methodspecialization would focus directly on the planner who has suchvaried career goals in mind as director of a planning agency,advocate planner for a neighborhood association, policy plannerat the national, state or metropolitan level. Indeed, the special-ization would apply to any student whose career goals extendedbeyond a purely technical rcle.

d. Methods of Instruction

An area of planning education which has languished in un-deserved neglect for many years has been the concept of an intern-type learning experience. LL most planning programs this hadalways been aeupherrismfor a summer Job in a planning agency. Noone paid too much attention to whether such a summer Job wasanything more than sharpening pencils. There seemed to be enimplicit assumption that just by stepping inside a planning officethe student was provided educationAl experience.

The deepening urban !risis and student demands for relevancyhas brought about e. sharp reaction to this view. Programssuch as those at Harvard an MIT23 stepped into the breach to pro-vide the student w5.th meaningful experience, usually in disadvan-taged neighborhoods or comaiasitiee where it was felt that hisunique talents were desperw.ely naeded. Such experiences, then,tended to focus on the advocate planner role. Meanwhile, back atthe university, nobody paic too much attention to what the studentwas actually doing. Needless to say, some of the advocacy experi-ences have been very rewarding. Some, however, have been bitterlyfrustrating and discppoinqng. But good or bad--there was seldoma faculty member or other experienced person to guide the episode,relate it to a body of theory and otherwise interpret it so thatit became a consoi)usly developed part of the education process.Thus, internship 1; still more honored in the breach than in thepractice.

7.


On the other hand, we are suggesting a model of internshipthat becomes an intrinsic part of the student's planning eeAcation.Students would not go into field situations to learn analytical ordesign skills. Their primary goal would be to learn planning pro-cess skills--with a particular focus on interactionalb-kills. TheseTai rd include such activities as: (1) the recruitment and organi-zation of individsalb and organizations, (2) relating participantsto the planning enterprise. (3) interpreting and developing com-munication techniques, and (4) assessing the manner in which in-dividuals act and interact within a group.

Another key aspect of learning in the intern setting isthe understanding that the planner develops of himself and theway in which his own personality affects the individuals andgroups with whom he is working. This is best learned in the fieldand moreover, requires sensitive and skilled supervision. This isa critical dimension which has underlain the failure of manystudent volunteer community projects. Ay suggested, in manysettings, a profuse display of analytical skills will not impressanyone and, in fact, may have exactly the opposite effect ofarousing hostility or suspicion.

Skill in interacting with others can be learned and devel-oped. I, essentially involves understanaing how others perceivethe planner: (1) in relation to the position he occupies in thegroup (a position usually organizationally based 83 that others'attitudes toward the planner are colored by their attitudes towardthe organization); (2) a perception of tte planner in terms of hisown personality; and (3) a perception of he normative aspects andexpectations of role behavior.

In overseeing the student in this process, a field instruc-tor is essential in helping the student observe interactionaldynamics and making his own assessment of progress, as well asrelating his field work to his other educational experience.

Such a program demands a network of relat:onships withplanning agencies and groups that builds an instructional pro-cess and develops mechanisms where a wide variety of planningexperiences can be observed, participated in and compared by thestudent. This type of field instruction is not mcommon inclinical psychology, social work and psychiatry. It involvesthe planning agency in providing instructcta and programs whichare related to the university academic wore. It can be pursuedsimultaneously with class work or be concentrated in summer pro-grams, or both.

Moreover, procedures which permit t'le students to compareand cress- analyse different field experiences and different pat-

8.9

A Social-Ac.4ion Approach for Planning Education Taper No. 022

terns of participation and problem-solving cap off an intern pro-gram that becomes an integrated and vital part of the educationalexperience.

CONCEPTUAL BASIS OF THE SOCTAL UTILITY APPROACH

The social-action approach derives from a number of special-izedcrientaticne within sociology, political science and psychology.The work of organization theorists, group dynamics theorists, andthe behavioral school of po:itical science provide much of theconceptual underpinning. Practical applications come from thefields of industrial managenent, rublic administration and comnunity organization.

There are more fundatental roots, however, and these shouldbe spelled out so that what is proposed here can be understood withgreater precision and with greater awareness of the large areas ofuncertainity that such an ap?roach entails.

Fundamentally, the approach assumes that social interde-pendence is the binding elerent of social order and that thisinterdependence manifests itself in groups and organizations.It assumes that group forniat.ons articulation and growth are in-trinsic and essential processes or societal development and thatthese processes are continuos and pervasive through time. ItFurther assumes that groups sursuo rational goals--rational, thatis, in their own terms. It )resunes that particular interestsare what bring individuals ti groups at the outset but that, as aresult of social interaction, particular interests become "locked"into group intereststhatgrorp consciousness, group identity andgroup goals emerge which incoisprotes particular interests and att':e same time transcends them The approach further assumesthat this !Aa an evolutionary, developmental process and that thedynamics oi' the process can be observed, understood, analyzed anddirected.

We proceed then not fro an atomistic or individualisticbase but rather from a collect.ve base. This is not entirelyunusual. Planners have seldom herd to laissez-faire philosophies.But they hive viewed their OW rote as unique, powerful andexpressly lndi idualistic. nay have assuled society has the'rapacity to act to achieve preleetgned ends, but they have presumed.That desigring those end is a svlialized skill delegated to afew, highly trained, individua;s. They have, in effeot, sold theirown "Grand Designs". We are stggesting that the planning special-ists' role now be shifted to ore whlph enables and facilitates3roups in developing group designs:"

4 A


A second e.ssumption is that the indil.idual in a communityhas a right and, indeed, an obligation to participate on equalfooting with other participants. Group functioning is, in thissense, viewed as a pluralistic process as opposed to a structured,authoritarian or hierarchical command-response arrangement. Thisdoes not imply the absence of formal organization in structure.It does imply that, in urban planning, differences in status,power and capacity within groups arise primarily' from social rg;a-tions rather than some prior, fixed conception of sovereignty.''In effect, we are suggesting that planning can indeed be under-taken in democratic settings.

The third major assumption stems from that of psychology(and, incidentally, education) that human behavior at least to somedegree, can be conditioned and that this conditioning can be ex-.ternally applied from environmental factors. The social-actionapproach extends further and assumes that group as well as indi-vidual behavior can be conditioned. This means that group behaviorcan be both constrained and stimulated by environmental elements.Thus, this approach assumes that groups can be directed, managedand controlled through understanding and manipulating the environ-ment. But it is !nportant to recognize that some constraints onsuch control comes also from within the group of which the planneris a par:.

This is not as 1,1achiavellian as it may seem. Every organi-zational executive (public or private) is involved in attemptingto manage and control the behavior of groups of people. Theexecutive is usually also involved in imposing his own goals (orthe organization's goals as he has defined them)--something wesuggest tte planner specifically avoid. Thus, the planner becomesan agent of professional service in a group network which definesfor itsef as own aims and outcomes.

Clearly, we can only offer a fragmented and sketchy empiri-cal base for such propositions. This is an avenue of research,study and experience just unfolding. The behavioral school ofpolitical science, for example, is strictly a twentieth centuryphenomena and the scope of its potential has yet to fully emerge.Group dynamils is a new body of theory growing out of the NationalTraining Labcratories during World War II. Organizational theoryhas only recently freed itself of the normative, instrumentaltheories of industrialists so that emerging social psychologicalapproaches have yet to crystallize into a unified body of theory.

Nevertheless, we feel that enough evidence is available,as sketchy as it is, to begin experimenting with this approach.Caution dictates that continual research and evaluation is critics ?.

10.

11


But it does suggest a real alternative approach to planning educa-tion which would seem to square with the demands and realities ofsocietal decision-making.

In short, we are suggesting that the principal traditionalmodes of understanding society (i.e.: structural-functional andhistorical-cultural approaches) provide only incomplete guidesand benchmarks and that behavioral-process bodies of knowledge arenow a basic need in planning education.

CONCLUSION

In this new view of planning education, it is important tonote that we have not consciously rejected the old philosophies(although we strongly suspect that Plato has become lost by thewayside ). In emphasizing the social and participatory processesof planning, we in no way meaa to demean the analytical or designmethods that have developed within the profession. We do suggest,however, that planning's exclsive preoccupation with these methodsis, in large degree, responsible for many of planning's problems

today. We can no longer ignore the development of meaningfulparticipatory mechanisms. The place to begin reforming our ap-proaches to planning lies fundamentally in our educational phil-osophies and background theory concerning these mechanisms.

Furthermore, is is important to note that with a shift in.philosophy, there is a subtle shift in the goals of a planningeducation. We have become less interested in producing plannerscapable of designing technically superior plans these are theplans that gather dust on bookshelves. With this shift, we arenow focused on the goal of producing planners who can design asuperior planning process. In roily respects, this is a new andvastly more complex task but one, in C.c.) final analysis, webelieve will lead lo more conscious and effective management of

purposeful and beneficial social change in our urban communit..es.

11.

12

A Social-Action Approach for Planning Education

FIGURE I

DESIGN OF A TRADITIONAL PLANNING CURRICULUM

CORE KNOWLEDGE AREAS

Structural Knowledge of Urban SocietyTMEUBFralogyUrban Geography and EcologyUrban EconomicsUrban Governmental Structure

Process Knowledge of Urbao SocietyHistorical Development ProcessesTravel BehaviorConsumer BehaviorActivity Patterns

AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION

Broad MethodSpecializationResearchDesignAdministration

LaspE No. 029

BASIC PLANNING SKILLS

Objective Anal tical SkillsSc en e o ; osop:Operations Research & MathModels and SimulationCost/Benefit AnalysisProgramming and Budgeting

Sl4bjective Designand Use ArrangementsSite Planning & EngineeringUrban DesignMaster Plan Design

ScalarSpecializationNignITOW-bistrietCity, Urban AreaMetropolitan, StateRegional, Nations'.

FunotionalSpecializationTi'ansportationHousing & Urban

PlanningHealth PlanningSchool PlanningSocial Planning

METHODS OF INSTRUCTION

Didactic

Classroom lecturesSeminars

Problem - Solving

StudiosWorkshopsGame Techniques

13

Internship

Summer job orVolunteer workin a planningsetting


FIGURE 2

A PLANNING CURRICULUM BASED ON A SOCIAL-ACTION PHILOSOPHY

CORE KNOWLEDGE AREAS

Structural Knowledge of Urban SocietyUrban SociologyUrban Geography and EcologyUrban EconomicsUrban Governmental Structure

Process Knowledge of Urban Societyirrs opmenMocessesTravel BehaviorConsumer BehaviorActivity Pat terns

Human Behavior mnan

DevelopmentUrban PsychologyOrganization TheoryGroup DynamicsCommunity Decision-MakingPolitical Behavior

BASIC PLANNING SKILLS

pblective Anal tical SkillsSal.-cnt c e od & PhilosolOperations Research & MathModels and SimulationCost/Benefit AnalysisProgramming & Budgeting

Subjective Design Skillsland Use ArrangementsSite Planning & EngineeringUrban DesignMaster Plan Design

Planning Process SkillsOrganizing SkillsPolitical SkillsGroup Functioning Skills,

AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION

Broad Method Scalar FunctionalSpecialization Specialization SpecializationResearch WeIghborhood, 'District TranspoitationDesign City, Urban Area Housing & UrbanAdministration Metropolitan, State Renewal

Regional, National Health PlanningSchool PlanningSocial PlanningPlannipei Process'

METHODS OF INSTRUCTION

Didactic Problem-Solving

Classroom lectures StudiosSeminars Workshops

Gaming Techniques

14

Internship

Supervised andInstructionalActivities in aField Agency


FOOTNOTES

1

For one account of the contemporary problem of planning educationsee: Michael P. Brooks and Michael A. Stegman, "Urban SocialPolicy, Race, and the Education of Planners", Journal of theAmerican Institute of Planners, XXXIV:5 (September, 1968), pp. 275-Mb. See also: especial TUTTre "Reshaping Planning Education,"Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XXXVI:1# (July 1970).

2

Plato, Republic, Benjanin Jowett, Tr. (New York;lishing 'Company, Inc., 1968; paperback edition).

3Max Wertheimer, Productive Thinking (New York:Publishing Co., 1159.)

John Dewey, Democracy and Education (New York:1962).

Airmont Pub-Book III.

Harper and Row

The Free Press,

5For an eloquent statement of this view see: John Friedmann,"Notes on Societal Action," Journal of the American institute ofPlanners, XXXV:5 (Sept. 196977-073177317.

6

Lisa R. Peattie, "Reflections on Advocacy Planning", Journal ofthe American Institute of Planners, XXXIV:2 (March 196817-T7-M88.

7Harvey S. Perloff, Education

Hopkins Press, 1957), pp.

8F. Ptuart Chapin, Jr., Urban(Urbana, Ill.: University of

(Baltimore: The John

Land Use Planning, Second Edition,Illinois Press, 1965), Part I.

9R. E. Park et al, Editors, The City (Chicago: University of Chi-

cago Press, 111253. See especially: Ernest W. Burgess, "The Growthof the City", Homer Hoyt, The Structure (thd Growth of Residentia_Neighborhoods in American Cities, Tathington: Federal Housing

ration, 1939). Roberts M. ig, "Major Economic Factors inMetropolitan Growth and Arrangement", Regional Survey of New Yorkand Its Environs, Volume I (New York: Hew York Regional PlanAssociation, 1927).

10

Robert B. Mitchell and Chester Rapkin, Urban TrafficL.A Functionof Land Use, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1954).

15

A Social-Action Approach for Planning Education Taper No. 029

FOOTNOTES (Continued)

11See: Special Issue: "Urban Development Models: New Tools for

Planning", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XXXI:2(May 1965).

12F. Stuart Chapin, Jr., 2.2. cit., Chapter 6.

13Henry C. Hightower, "Planning Theory in Contemporary Professional

Education" Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XXXV:5(September 1763775778.

14Harry S. Sullivan, The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry, H.S.

Perry and M.L. Gawel,tos. (New York: WR Norton & Co., Inc., 1953).Erik Erikson, Identity and the Life Cycle (New York: InternationalUniversities Press, 1559). Edward 3. Murray, Motivation and Emotion(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prertice-Hall,1767-1964).

15Stanley Milgram, "The Experience of Living in Cities", Science,

Vol. 167: 13 (March 1970), pp. 14611468.

See: Kevin Lynch, The Image of the City (Cambridge: The MITPress, 1960). Amos Rapoport and Robert S. Kantor, Complexity andAmbiguity in Environmental Design", Journal of the AmericanInstitute of Planners, XXX:4 (July 1967) pp. 210-221. Amos Rapoportand Ron HaAes, 6TEFPerception of Urban Complexity", Journal of theAmerican Institute of Planners, XXXVI:2 (March 1970) pp. 106 -111.

17See: Chris Argyris, Inte ersknal Cometence and Organizational

Effectiveness (Homewood, no s: c ar P. rw n,Robert L. Kahn and D. Katz, The Social Psychology of Organizstions(New York: John Wiley and Sons, 196b). Robert-V. Presthue, TheOrganizational Society (New York: A.A. Knopf, 1962). James DT--March and Herbert Simon, Organizations (New York: John Wiley

Sons, Inc. ]958).

18

nc

Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander (eds.) Oroup pynamics:Research and Theory New York: Harper and Row, 1968).

19Terry Clarke (ed.), Community Structure and Decision-Making:

A Comparative AnalysisNRPrancisco: Chandler Publishing Co.,1968).

:t 6



20Lawrence D. Mann, "Studies in Community Decision-Making', Journal

of the American Institute of Planners, XXX:l (February 1964), pp.58-65. See also: Alan Altshuler, The City Planning Process: APolitical Analysis (Ithaca, New YorR7-7-6EFII-URIVersity Press, 1965

21Wayne A. R. Leys,

cepts and Issues inEdward H. Van Hess,Hall, Inc. 1962) pp.

22

"The Value Framework of Decision-Making", Con-Administrative Behavior, Sidney Mailick andEdff-ors, (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-81-93.

See especially: Ronald Lippitt, et al, The amics of PlannedChange (New York: Harcourt, Brace and- Vor1d, urray ose,Commmity Organization: Theory and Principles, (New York: HarperI'M-Mothers, 055). Philip Selznick, TVA and the Grass Roots(New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1966). Herbert A. Simon, Administra-tive Behavior, second Edition (New York: The Free Press, 19661.TerrrerilW1ms, Changing Organizations (New York: McGraw Hill BookCo. 1966).

23Lisp. R. Peattie, "Teaching and Learning for Planners", Journal of

the American Enatitue of Planners, XXXV:1 (January 1969$ pp. 52-54.

24See: Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman, The Social Construction of

Real ty (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & .o., c. ArZE5F105E173171.cn, 1967) pp. 53-67. Classical sources of this assumptioninclude: Hegel (The Philosophy of Hi ht), Weber (The Theory ofSocial and Econemic_Osganizetions) arid Durkheim (The Division_ of/nor in Society).

25T. M. Knox, Tranal., He elis Philosophy of Right (New York:

Oxford University Press, apex ac edition, 19671-Third Part.

26See: Amltai Etzioni, The Active society (New York: The Free

Press, 1968) Chapter IV.

27The basic source of this assumption arises from the Oxford

Idealist School, principally: T.H. Green, Lectures on the Prin-ciples of Political Obligation (Ann Arbor: Th7 University ofliaThigan Press, 1967). Also: Sidney look, Reason, Social Mythsand Democrat (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, Torchbookedition, ) pp. 287-288.

17



28Some of John Dewey may be chipped away as well, especially his

faith in the exclusive use of scientific method as the only basisfor social planning. See his: Liberalism and Social Action (NewYork: Capricorn Books, 1963) pp. 70-767--

18

DOCUMENT RESUME ED 047 376 E, 003 286 AUTHOR L … · TITLE L Social-Action Approach for Planning...

Documents

Transcript of DOCUMENT RESUME ED 047 376 E, 003 286 AUTHOR L … · TITLE L Social-Action Approach for Planning...