Planning as science: Engaging disagreement

Journal of Planning Education and Research

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 399-406

  Hopkins, Lewis D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33344474935     PISSN: 0739456X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X0102000402     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Alterman, R., and M. Hill. 1978. Implementation of land use plans. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 44 (3): 274-85.
2. Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP) Strategic Marketing Committee. 1997. Anchor points for planning's identification. Journal of Planning Education and Research 16 (3): 223-24.
3. Boyer, E. L. 1990. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
4. Brill, E. D. Jr., J. M. Flach, L. D. Hopkins, and S. Ranjithan. 1990. MGA: A decision support system for complex, incompletely defined problems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 20 (4): 745-57.
5. Bryson, J. M. 1991. There is no substitute for an empirical defense of planning and planners. Journal of Planning Education and Research 10 (2): 164-65.
6. Bryson, J. M., P. Bromiley, and Y. S. Jung. 1990. Influences of context and process on project planning success. Journal of Planning Education and Research 9 (3): 183-95.
7. Burby, R. J., P. J. May, P. R. Berke, L. C. Dalton, S. P. French, and E. J. Kaiser. 1997. Making governments plan: State experiments in managing land use. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
8. Crane, R. 1997. Sprawl, I hardly know ye. Journal of the American Planning Association 63 (2): 278-79.
9. Dalton, L. 1989. Emerging knowledge about planning practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research 9 (1): 29-44.
10. Ewing, R. 1997. Counterpoint: Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable? Journal of the American Planning Association 63 (1): 107-26.
11. Forester, J. 1989. Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of California Press.
12. Goldstein, H. A. 1997. The pattern and types of scholarly contributions to planning. Paper read at the 39th Conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, 6-9 November, at Fort Lauderdale, FL.
13. Gordon, P., and H. W. Richardson. 1997. Point: Are compact cities a desirable planning goal? Journal of the American Planning Association 63 (1): 95-106.
14. Healey, P. 1992. A planner's day: Knowledge and action in communicative practice. Journal of the American Planning Association 58 (1): 9-20.
15. Helling, A. 1998. Collaborative visioning: Proceed with caution. Journal of the American Planning Association 64 (3): 335-49.
16. Hoch, C. 1994. What planners do: Power, politics, and persuasion. Chicago: Planners Press, American Planning Association.
17. Hopkins, L. D. 1984a. Evaluation of methods for exploring ill-defined problems. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 11:339-48.
18. _. 1984b. Theory of elephants. Journal of Planning Education and Research 4 (2): 135.
19. _. 1995. 1995 Chester Rapkin Award for the Best Article in Volume 14: Acceptance speech. Journal of Planning Education and Research 15 (1): 64-65.
20. Huff, A. S. 1999. Writing for scholarly publication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21. Innes, J. E. 1995. Planning theory's emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research 14 (3):183-89.
22. Johnson, D. A. 1996. Planning the great metropolis: The 1929 regional plan of New York and its environs. In Studies in history, planning and the environment, edited by G. E. Cherry and A. Sutcliffe. London: E & FN Spon.
23. Knaap, G. J., L. D. Hopkins, and K. P. Donaghy. 1998. Do plans matter? A framework for examining the logic and effects of land use planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research 18 (1): 25-34.
24. Lai, S.-K., and L. D. Hopkins. 1995. Can decision makers express multiattribute preferences using AHP and MUT? An experiment. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 22 (1): 21-34.
25. Lee, I., and L. D. Hopkins. 1995. Procedural expertise for efficient multiattribute evaluation: A procedural support strategy for CEA. Journal of Planning Education and Research 14 (4): 255-68.
26. Mastop, H., and A. Faludi. 1997. Evaluation of strategic plans: The performance principle. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 24:815-32.
27. Miller, R. W. 1987. Fact and method: Explanation, confirmation and reality in the natural and the social sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28. Stiftel, B., and C. E. Connerly. 1995. Submissions and reviews in the Journal of Planning Education and Research: 1991-1992. Journal of Planning Literature 9:255-66.
29. _. 1997. Images of planning scholarship: Submissions and reviews in the Journal of Planning Education and Research, 1991-1996. Paper read at the 39th Conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, 6-9 November, at Fort Lauderdale, FL.
30. Talen, E. 1996a. After the plans: Methods to evaluate the implementation success of plans. Journal of Planning Education and Research 16 (2): 7941.
31. Talen, E. 1996b. Do plans get implemented? A review of evaluation in planning. Journal of Planning Literature 10 (3): 248-59.
32. Teitz, M. B. 1996. American planning in the 1990s: Evolution, debate and challenge. Urban Studies 33 (4-5): 649-71.
33. Trybus, T. W., and L. D. Hopkins. 1980. Humans versus computer algorithms for the plant layout problem. Management Science 26:570-74.