Research project Beyond the process – Finding common ground for a discussion on planning’s substantial foundation

If one considers (planning) sciences in general as knowledge foundation of the profession in which planning actions are reflected, analysed, discussed and modified, this missing theoretical foundation leads to a multitude of problems – for researchers in spatial planning, for planners in practice and for scientific institutions. The lack of clear explicit understandings of spatial planning, its foundations and theoretical core aspects leads to insufficient clarifications of the arguments in the academic debate itself and, in the worst case, fundamental incomprehension. Practitioners in the field of planning, however, hardly benefit from contemporary planning theories, resembling ideal-typical reflections on planning processes far off everyday challenges. In sum, planning sciences hardly provide researchers and practitioners with sufficient knowledge to improve both theories and practices. The International Working Group aims to provide a platform for setting planning sciences on the move, through innovative debates about the challenges, barriers and necessities to rethink planning sciences, its origins and characteristics. A crucial challenge is to focus on those issues that are of direct relevance to spatial planning as scientific activity.

This implies to rethink
•    what spatial planning is and what is meant by planning,
•    what the paradigmatic foundations of planning sciences/ studies are and the impact they have on planning research and practice,
•    what distinguishes planning approaches from conceptions, models and theories in and especially of planning,
•    about the theoretical linkages and complementarities with other sciences and their theoretical foundations,
•    about quality standards of an interdisciplinary research without neglecting disciplinary origins,
•    or the role of space in planning sciences.

Thereby we do not seek to reduce planning to one universal understanding or to develop one overarching planning theory – in contrast, it is the crucial challenge to build a complex puzzle of what planning might be and elaborate on a contemporary understanding of planning sciences in the 21st century. Further, it shall encourage scholars to make space for theoretical furthering of ‘planning’ itself.