| 770 | 4 | 128 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
这篇文章集中讨论空间和区域规划学科的研究问题。规划研究与一般的科学研究相同也不同,甚至与空间研究学科的研究方法也存在较大差异。文章重点就如下问题进行了论述:(1)关于规划学科研究的争论;(2)空间和区域规划做研究的特殊性;(3)规划学科的知识传统及其对研究实践的影响;(4)规划研究的认识论和道德敏感性;(5)在规划实践中研究:规划研究与规划实践的相互作用。
Abstract：This paper focuses on "doing research" within the discipline of spatial and regional planning. There are some important differences of research methods in the planning field and other spatial disciplines. The paper addresses on followings:(1) the argument for focusing on research in the planning discipline;(2) the specificities of doing research in spatial and regional planning;(3) intellectual traditions in planning and their impacts on research practices;(4) epistemological and ethical sensibility in planning research;(5) research in practice: the interaction between research and practice.
[1]ALBRECHTS L.Strategic(Spatial)planning re-examined[J].Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design,2004,31:743-758.
[2]ALEXANDER E R.A mile or a millimetre?measuring the‘planning theor y-practice gap’[J].Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design,1997,24(1):3-6.
[3]ALLMENDINGER P.Planning theory[M].2nd edition.London:Palgrave Macmillan,2009.
[4]ALLMENDINGER P,TEWDWR-JONES M.Mind the gap:planning theorypractice and the translation of knowledge intoaction;a comment on Alexander[J].Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design,1997,24:802-806.
[5]BARRETT S,FUDGE C.Policy and action[M].London:Methuen,1981.
[6]BATTY M.Cities and complexity[M].Cambridge:MIT Press,2005.
[7]BATTY M,LONGLEY P.Fractal cities:geometry of form and function[M].New York:Academic Press,1994.
[8]BERG B,LUNE H.Qualitative research methods forthe social sciences[M].Cambridge:Pearson,2012.
[9]BIRCH E L,SILVER C.One hundred years of cityplanning’s enduring and evolving connections[J].Journal of the American Planning Association,2009,75(2):113-122.
[10]CAMPBELL H.Planning to change the world:between knowledge and action lies synthesis[J].Journal of Planning Education and Research,2012,32(2):135-146.
[11]CLAMP C G L,GOUGH S,LAND L.Resources for nursing research[M].4th ed.London:Sage,2004.
[12]DAHL R A,LINDBLOM C E.Politics,economicand welfare[M].4th edition.New Brunswick:Transaction,1953/1992.
[13]DAVOUDI S.Evidence-based policy:rhetoric and reality[J].The Planning Review,2006,42,165:14-24.
[14]DAVOUDI S,PENDLEBURY J.The evolution of planning asan academic discipline[J].Town Planning Review,2010,81(6):613-645.
[15]DE ROO G,SILVA E.A planner’s encounter withcomplexity[M].Aldershot:Ashgate,2010.
[16]Economic and Social Research Council.ESRC Framework for Research Ethics.Swindon:ESRC,2012.
[17]ENGELS F.The great towns[M]//LEGATES R,STOUT F,eds.The City Reader.3rd ed.London:Routledge,1845/2003:58-66.
[18]FAINSTEIN S S,CAMPBELL S,eds.Readings in planning theory[M].Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell,2012.
[19]FLOWERDEW R,MARTIN D.Methods in human geography:a guide for students doing a research project[M].2nd ed.Harlow:Pearson,2005.
[20]FLYVBJERG B.Making social science matter:why socialinquiry fails and how it can succeed again[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2001.
[21]FLYVBJERG B,LANDMAN T,et al,eds.Real social science:applied phronesis[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2012.
[22]FORESTER J.Planning in the face of power[M].Berkeley:University of California Press,1989.
[23]FORESTER J.The deliberative practitioner:encouraging participatory planning processes[M].London:MIT Press,1999.
[24]FRIEDMANN J.Re-tracking America:a theory of transactive planning[M].New York:Anchor Press,1973.
[25]FRIEDMANN J.Planning in the public domain[M].Princeton:Princeton University Press,1987.
[26]FRIEDMANN J.Planning theory revisited[J].European Planning Studies,1987,6(3):245-253.
[27]FRIEDMANN J,HUDSON B.Knowledge and action:a guide to planning theory[J].Journal of the American Institute of Planners,1974,40(1):2-16.
[28]GEDDES P.City survey for town planning purposes,of municipalities and government[M]//LEGATES R,STOUT F eds.The City Reader.London:Routledge,1915a/2000:330-335.
[29]GEDDES P.Cities in evolution[M].London:Ernest Benn,1915b/1968.
[30]GIVEN L,ed.The sage encyclopaedia of qualitative research methods[M].London:SAGE,2008.
[31]GORARD S.Quantitative methods in social science:the role of numbers made easy[M].London:Continuum,2003.
[32]GREED C.Women and planning:creating genderedrealities[M].London:Routledge,1994.
[33]HAJER M.The politics of environmental discourse[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,1995.
[34]HALL P.Cities of tomorrow[M].Oxford:Blackwell,1988.
[35]HALL P.Cities of tomorrow.an intellectual history of planning and design in the twentieth century[M].Updated ed.Oxford,UK:Blackwell,1996.
[36]HARPER T L,STEIN S M.The centrality of normative ethical theory to contemporary planning[J].Journal of Planning Education and Research,1992,11(2):105-116.
[37]HARRIS N.Orienting oneself to practice:a comment on Alexander[J].Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design,1997,24(6):799-801.
[38]HEALEY P.Collaborative planning in a stakeholder society[J].Town Planning Review,1998,69(1):1-21.
[39]HEALEY P.Collaborative planning:shaping places infragmented societies[M].2nd edition.Basingstoke:Pal-grave Macmillan,2006.
[40]HEALEY P.Urban complexity and spatial strategies:towards a relational planning for our times[M].London:Routledge,2007.
[41]HEALEY P.Making better places:the planning project inthe twenty-first century[M].Basingstoke,UK:Palgrave Macmillan,2010.
[42]HEALEY P,HILLIER J.Foundations of the planning enterprise[M]//Critical Essays in Planning Theory,1.Aldershot:Ashgate,2008.
[43]HENDLER S,ed.Planning ethics:a reader in planning theory,practice and education[M].New Brunswick,NJ:Rutgers,1995.
[44]Higher Education Funding Council for England.Research Excellence Framework 2014.Assessment Framework and Guidance on Submissions.Bristol:HEFCE,2011.
[45]HILLIER J,HEALEY P,eds.The Ashgate research companion to planning theory[M].Aldershot:Ashgate,2010.
[46]HOCH C.What planners do:politics,power and persuasion[M].Chicago:Planners Press,1994.
[47]HOWE E.Normative ethics in planning[J].Journal of Planning Literature,1990,5(2):123-150.
[48]INNES J E,BOOHER D.Consensus building as role playing and bricolage:toward a theor y of collaborative planning[J].Journal of the American Planning Association,1999,65(1):9-26.
[49]JENSEN O B,RICHARDSON T.Making European space:mobility,power and territorial identity[M].London:Routledge.2004.
[50]JESSOP B.Critical realism and the strategic-relational approach[J].New Formations,2005,56(1):40-53.
[51]KITCHEN T.Skills for planning practice[M].Basingstoke:Palgrave,2007.
[52]KRIZEK K,FORSY TH A,SLOTTERBACK C S.Is there a role for evidence-based practice in urban planning and policy?[J].Planning Theory and Practice,2009,10(4):459-478.
[53]LEWIS-BECK M S,BRYMAN A,LIAO T F.The sage encylopaedia of social science research methods[M].London:SAGE,2004.
[54]LOGIO K A,DOWDALL G W,BABBIE E R,et al.Adventures in criminal justice research[M].4th ed.London:Sage,2008.
[55]LO Piccolo F,THOMAS H,eds.Ethics and planning research[M].Aldershot:Ashgate,2009.
[56]LYONS E,COYLE A.Analysing qualitative data in psychology[M].London:Sage,2008.
[57]MAX-NEEF M A.Foundations of transdisciplinarity[J].Ecological Economics,2005,53(1):5-16.
[58]MCNIFF J,WHITEHEAD J.All you need to know about action research[M].London:SAGE,2006.
[59]MELLER H,GEDDES Patrick.Social evolutionist and city planner[M].London:Routledge,1990.
[60]OPENSHAW S,OPENSHAW C.Artificial intelligence in geography[M].Chichester:John Wiley,1997.
[61]Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities:Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development.Frascati Manual.Paris:OECD,2002.
[62]OUTHWAITE W S,TURNER S,eds.The sage handbook of social science methodology[M].London:SAGE,2007.
[63]PRESSMAN J L,WILDAVSKY A B.Implementation:how great expectations in washington are dashed in Oakland[M].Berkeley:University of California Press,1973.
[64]REASON P,BRADBURY H,eds.The sage handbook of action research:participative inquiry and practice[M].London:SAGE,2008.
[65]REMENYI D.Case study research.The quick guide series[C].Reading:Academic Conferences,2012.
[66]RODRIGUEZ-BACHILLER A.British town planning education:accomparative perspective[J].Town Planning Review,1991,62:43-445.
[67]ROY A.City requiem,calcutta:gender and the politics of poverty[M].Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,2003.
[68]RUANE J M.Essentials of research methods:a guide tosocial science research[M].Malden,MA:Blackwell,2004.
[69]SANYAL B.Comparative planning cultures[M].Abingdon,UK:Routledge,2005.
[70]SAWICKI D.Improving community indicators:injecting moresocial science into a folk movement[J].Planning Theory and Practice,3(1),2002:13-32.
[71]SCH?N D.The reflective practitioner[M].New York:Basic Books,1983.
[72]SILVA E.Cellular automata models and agent base modelsfor urban studies:from pixels,to cells,to hexa-dpi’s[M]//YANG Xiaoyun ed.Urban remote sensing:monitoring,synthesis and modeling in the urban environment.Hoboken,NJ:Wiley-Blackwell,2011:323-345.
[73]SILVERMAN D,ed.Qualitative research[M].London:SAGE,2011.
[74]SIMON H.Administrative behavior[M].New York:Free Press,1945.
[75]SOMEKH B,LEWIN C.Theory and methods in social research[M].2nd edition.London:SAGE,2011.
[76]SUTCLIFFE A.Towards the planned city:Germany,Britain,the United States and France,1780-1914[M].Oxford:Blackwell,1981.
[77]TAYLOR N.Urban planning theory since 1945[M].London:Sage,1998.
[78]THYER B.The handbook of social work research methods[M].London:Sage,2010.政府的角色只是在初期提供各种诱因和示范计划,着力于理念的推广和经验的交流、技术的提供以及部分经费的支持[3]。可见,充分发挥社会力量,实现多方合作,建构自上而下与自下而上相结合的参与机制,为社区社会文化活力发展提供保障,才能创造源源不断的内在活力。
[79]TEWDWR-JONES M,THOMAS H.Collaborative action in local planmaking:planners’perceptions of‘planning through debate’[J].Environment and Planning B:Planning and Design,1998,25(1):127-144.
[80]TURING A M.“On computable numbers,with an applicationto the entscheidungs problem”[J].Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society,2(42),1937:230-65.
[81]ULAM Stanis?aw.Science,computers,and people:from the tree of mathematics[M].Boston:Birkhauser,1986.
[82]VON NEUMAN J,MORGENSTERN O.Theory of games and economic behavior[M].US:Princeton Univ.Press,1944.
[83]WAGENAAR H.Meaning in action:interpretation and dialogue in policy analysis[M].New York:M.E.Sharpe,2011.
[84]WARD S.Planning in the twentieth centur y:the advanced capitalist world[M].London:Wiley,2002.
[85]WU N,SILVA E.Surveying models in urban land studies[J].Journal of Planning Literature,2012,27:139-152.
[86]WU N,SILVA E.Selecting an urban models using waves of complexity[J].Urban Design and Planning,2013,166(1):76-90.
[87]YANOW D,SCHWARTZ-SHEA P,eds.Inter pretation and method:empirical research methods and the interpretive turn[M].New York:M.E.Sharpe,2006.
[88]YIN R.Case study research[M].Thousand Oaks:SAGE,2009.
(1)参见弗里德曼和哈德森(Friedmann&Hudson,1974)关于规划中知识和行动关系的报告,及弗里德曼(Friedmann,1987)关于此报告发展的文献。
(2)参见哈珀和施泰因(Harper&Stein,1992)为探索这个规范层面的特定规划的报告,及豪(Howe,1990)为进一步考虑规划的规范性道德的报告。
(3)第二章希利(Healey,2010)提供了一个关于规划此特性的入门报告,并提供了一步阅读的参考文献。
(1)弗里德曼(Friedmann,1987)有关规划中不同知识传统的经典报告帮助开启这一多样性探索。
(2)参见罗·皮寇罗和托马斯(Lo Piccolo&Thomas,2009)关于规划研究伦理的论述,亨德勒(Hendler,1995)关于规划更广泛的道德的讨论。
(3)参见戴夫欧蒂和彭德尔伯里(Davoudi&Pendlebury,2010)、坎贝尔(Campbell,2012)和基钦(Kitchen,2007)第八章;
(4)随着“科学”成为一种调查方式,从19世纪的斗争发展出学术“自由”的爱念。然而,科学探究的大部分领域被实践推动着,大学长期以来一直致力于管理类的培训,最初是为教会,后来是为了国家。近日,“学术自由”的概念一直受到争议。缓慢科学运动对不断增长的特殊行业和市场对研究和学术自由的丧失构成的压力提出了批评,同时还提倡“公民的科学”。参见slow-science.org。
(5)参见罗·皮寇罗和托马斯(Lo Piccolo&Thomas,2009)。
(6)参见弗里德曼(Friedmann,1987)、希利尔和希利(Hillier&Healey,2010)、阿尔门丁格(Allmendinger,2009)及费恩斯蒂茵和坎贝尔(Fainstein&Campbell,2012)。
(1)参见伯格和伦(Berg&Lune,2012),吉文(Given,2008)和戈拉德(Gorard,2003),作为例子可参见耶诺和施瓦茨谢伊(Yanow&Schwartz Shea,2006)。
(2)参见萨克利夫(Sutcliffe,1981)、霍尔(Hall,1988)、沃德(Ward,2001)及伯奇和西尔韦(Silver&Birch,2009)。
(3)参见罗德里格斯-巴奇列尔(Rodriguez-Bachiller,1991)。
(4)参见规划理论杂志(the journal of Planning Theory)、弗里德曼(Friedmann,1988)、戴夫欧蒂和彭德尔伯里(Davoudi&Pendlebury,2010)。
(5)参见格迪斯(Geddes,)1915a/2000和恩格斯(Engels)1845/2003,研究传统的早期例子。
(6)参见霍尔(Hall,1996),尤其是第五章;梅勒(Meller,1990),第六章关于格迪斯(Geddes)工作的影响;沃德(Ward,2001),关于20世纪的规划传统。
(1)参见弗里德曼(Friedmann,1973)。
(2)参见达尔和林德布洛姆(Dahl&Lindblom)及西蒙(Simon,1945)。
(3)这一时期的关键期刊是《美国规划师协会杂志》(JAIP:Journal of the American Institute of Planners),随后是《美国规划学会杂志》(JAPA:Journal of the American Planning Association)。
(4)参见泰勒(Taylor)1998关于理性综合模型的解释和批评。
(5)行为研究包含研究者的系统性反思;参见里森和布拉德伯里(Reason&Bradbury,2008)和麦利夫和怀特海德(Mc Niff&Whitehead,2006)、Uttke等人所著章节,以及科特瓦尔和穆林所著本书第五章(Kotval&Mullin)。
(6)费吕博基格(Flyvbjerg,2001)认为“谁受益”是规划领域的关键性问题。
(1)参见普莱斯曼和韦达夫斯基(Pressman&Wildavsky,1973),以及巴雷特和富奇(Barrett&Fudge,1981)。
(2)参见福雷斯特(Forester,1989,1999),以及霍克(Hoch,1994)。
(3)这一术语意味着用一个概念体系建构一个科学问题。
(4)参见格里德(Greed,1994)关于它们及其关系的论述。
(5)参见希利和希利尔(Healey&Hillier,2008)的第三卷,以及希利尔和希利(Hillier&Healey,2010)。
(6)参见哈耶尔(Hajer,1995)环境相关论述和詹森和理查德森(Jensen&Richardson,2004)关于欧洲空间规划的论述。
(7)参见希利(Healey,1998,2006),以及英尼斯和布赫(Innes&Booher,1999)。
(8)参见图德-琼斯马克和托马斯休(Tewdwr-Jones M&Thomas H,1998)。
(9)一般方法参见西尔弗曼(Silverman,2011)、伯格和伦(Berg&Lune,2012)、耶诺和施瓦兹-谢伊(Yanow&Schwartz-Shea,2006),以及费吕博基格(Flyvbjerg,2001)和杰索普(Jessop,2005)。
(1)参见亚历山大(Alexander,1997)、哈里斯(Harris,1997)、阿尔门丁格(Allmendinger)和图德-琼斯(Tewdwr-Jones)1997关于关系交换的研究。
(1)参见马克思-尼夫(Max-Neef,2005)、卡西纳里和莫拉尔特(Cassinari&Moulaert)5.3节。
(2)参见戴夫欧蒂(Davoudi)5.2节,以及戴夫欧蒂(Davoudi,2006)和克里泽(Krizek et al.,2009)。
(1)这些准则因学科的不同而异。英国一个适用于社会科学研究的框架来自经济与社会研究委员会(ESRC,UK)。
基本信息:
中图分类号:TU984
引用信息:
[1]伊丽莎贝特·A·席尔瓦,帕齐·希利,尼尔·哈里斯,等.论规划研究的技巧[J].国际城市规划,2018,33(01):101-110+142.
2015-06-08
2015
2018-03-27
2018
3
2017-11-08
2017-11-08
2017-11-08