Imagine past and contemporary planning theorists subscribing to different epistemological traditions have somehow gathered in one room to discuss your research project titled: “Watershed Management and River Restoration in the Context of Conflicting Upstream and Downstream Interests.”
a) Choose your favorite theorist(s) within the following traditions:
• Rational scientific planning;
• Coherentist planning
• Postmodern planning
• Collaborative planning
b) Outline how each theorist will advise you on guiding principles of your planning intervention; and
c) Discuss the strengths and limitations of each perspective in dealing with the context of your project.
This week I was fortunate to discuss my research with planning theorists who ascribe to contrasting schools of thought. From each of them, I have obtained valuable lessons and strategies for framing my research. Below I describe what they told me, as well as the strengths and limitations to their approach as it pertains to my work on watershed management.
Rational scientific planning
The rational and scientific planners (Simon, Davidoff, Faludi, Wildavsky) got straight to the point. They advised me to begin with a comprehensive watershed diagnostic. I should begin by collect biophysical data (elevation, vegetation, urbanization, hydrology, soil type, sewer systems, flow trends, water quality etc...) in addition to social data (water users, income, willingness to pay) and integrate this into a singular watershed model. The advances in geographic information system (GIS) software would facilitate the integration of the data layers into a singular electronic model. Once the diagnostic was completed, the main problems in the watershed such as pollution or inefficiencies would reveal themselves.
Having generated a diagnostic watershed model, the rational and scientific decision maker would then proceed with the following steps:
1) Identify watershed goals
2) Establish priorities and criteria to evaluate interventions
3) Identify all possible watershed interventions
4) Evaluate alternatives according to priorities and criteria
5) Select the best policy
6) Implement
The advantage to this decision making process is that it is linear and straightforward. There is also accountability for why decisions have been made. In terms of accountability, it is democratic, even though the decisions are often centralized. And while some of the planners recognized some weaknesses to this approach, they insisted that it was necessary because there is so much about the watershed that we still did not understand: Which pollutants flow through the watershed? How to these pollutants interact with the ecosystems? What is the cost of treating these pollutants? How do these pollutants vary over space and time? And they pointed out that no one had yet studied the ecosystem service provision in the watershed. In this sense, they encouraged me to explore the spatial and temporal variability of the ecosystem services provided in the watershed.
I quickly determined that the comprehensive watershed planning approach would not be entirely appropriate for my research. Even if I adopted Herbert Simon’s ‘bounded rationality’, that permitted screening of alternatives and sufficing with the most realistic options, the complexity of the watershed still far exceeded my capacity of comprehension. There are the standard criticisms to the rational choice model, such as the lack of comparability between alternatives, and the difficulty in quantifying particular values. But even beyond that, I was concerned that their approach did not encourage me to look at the historical and political context of water pollution. It seems that there is a wealth of information and insight to be uncovered by looking into the past and by understanding how the watershed has evolved over time.
The rational planners recommended that I rely predominately on quantitative methods. While many of these are useful, I found that most quantitative methods suggested would not uncover the multidimensionality and complexity of the watershed problems at hand.
Coherentist planning
Donaghy and Hopkins (2006) suggested that I take a coherentist approach to planning. They told me that creating a singular and hierarchical master plan for the watershed was neither possible nor advisable. This singular comprehensive plan would be an artificial construct in the sense that it would smother dissent among various actors in the watershed. By glossing over dissent, I would lose out on valuable insight that can be generated by exploring the tensions. From a theoretical perspective, they explained that a coherentist approach to planning theory follows the same logic as the theory about maintain a ‘web of plans’. Just how a ‘web of plans’ is preferable to a Master plan, so too is it preferable to maintain contextual theories that co-exist despite their contradictions. Therefore in planning theory, it is critical to look for and rely upon a repertoire of planning theories to assist us is deriving theories of explanations and theories of justifications. While we all need theories (explanations and justifications) to help us cope with the complexity of the world, these theories should be contingent on context. Researchers should ask about the historical and political of theory making, as well as ask which audience will consume or evaluate the theory. Donaghy and Hopkins suggested that I begin by analyzing my audience since the audience is likely to determine the causal depth necessary to validate the explanation I may give. We agreed that my audience consists of both public officials and water treatment engineers, and that this group is more likely to be amenable to models of how the watershed works. In this case, they encouraged me to work with researchers who have experience on quantitative modeling of pollution, while at the same time, explore other questions using other methods that can complement my quantitative findings.
Donaghy and Hopkins were supportive of my idea to conduct an environmental history of water pollution in the watershed. They agreed that this analysis could reveal insights that could elude my analysis of water quality and treatment costs. They also encouraged me to identify discrepancies and inconsistencies among the methods I used, because they hypothesized that it was at these points of friction, on the edges between disciplines, where advances could be made. They also warned me of dogmatisms, and encouraged me to not presume disagreement between theories.
The advantage of the coherentist approach is that it provides me with epistemological flexibility, and provides me with a broader range of methods and strategies to address my research question. The disadvantage to their approach is that it remains unclear how to select particular approaches in different circumstances.
Postmodern planning
The postmodernists were a fun crowd (Foucault, Milroy, Beauregard, Sandercock). They reveled in questioning every assumption I had made in my proposal. They reminded me that knowledge is a social construct, not the product of objective rationalization. To prove their point, they relied on the work of linguists (Saussucre) who showed that meaning is ultimately subject to our interpretation of arbitrary signifiers. By understanding the separation of signifier and signified, we realize that our words are arbitrary combinations of symbols that have meaning only in their social context. By changing or removing the social context, we can change or remove meaning. As a result all knowledge is socially constructed, and in constant evolution. ‘Truth’ becomes redefined as that which is no longer contested in a particular social context.
The postmodernists had plenty of suggestions that were relevant to my work. First, they suggested that searching for a singular and optimal solution to water pollution was fruitless. And even if a singular solution could be calculated, they warned me that the result was contingent upon our positionality and assumptions. To this I replied that economists already knew that assumptions were critical for determining outcomes! The postmodernists clarified, saying that they were referring to assumptions about which questions were important to ask in the first place. In this respect, they advised me to concentrate on problem framing instead of problem solving.
Milroy (2001) was able to summarize four basic tenants of post-modernism thought. First, it was deconstructive, in the sense that I described earlier. Second, it was anti-foundational, meaning that they rejected universal laws, truth and reason. Third, it was non-dualistic in the sense that they discouraged traditional dichotomies that frame our understanding: good vs. bad; men vs. women; fact vs. values. And fourth, they embraced diversity.
I felt I could accept most, but not all of Milroy’s tenants of postmodernity. The tenant that caused me most concern was anti-foundationalism since it rejected all universal laws and truth. Accepting such a tenant would put me a serious bind, and challenge my ability to make recommendations. Accepting anti-foundationalism risked throwing me off the precipice of relativism where no truth exists, no assertion becomes more valid than another, and no action is possible. In short, everything goes.
Still, it was useful speaking to the postmodern planners because they encouraged me to think about power relationships. They also encouraged me to deconstruct the existing narratives that dominate explanations about water pollution. One dominant narrative is that the pollution emanating from the mine is too expensive to clean up and that the costs for addressing the problem far exceed the potential benefits. Furthermore, the narrative asserts that local mining towns depend on employment from the operation of the mines, and that closing the mines would provoke widespread economic devastation.
The postmodernists helped me construct a counter-narrative that described how mining towns have already organized to enforce environmental regulations on the mining industry. The mines have already generated economic devastation for other industries including local water suppliers that need to ship in new water from miles away because their local source has been salinated. Profits from the mines are exported to a foreign mining conglomerate in the Middle East, and miners are willing to change employment if other opportunities existed. Lastly, the ‘costs’ of addressing the pollution problem may in fact generate returns on investment (profits) downstream, and finally, the operation of the mine may be compatible with ecosystem recovery.
Collaborative planning
The collaborative planners (Forrester, Healey, Innes and Susskind) were congenial and great listeners. They encouraged me to play close attention what was being said about the watershed, and then to participate in this dialogue. For these collaborative planners, knowledge was constructed through communication acts. They drew from Habermas and his conception of communicative rationality -- which is essentially an epistemological view that knowledge is created through communication (Sandercock 1998). This concept made intuitive sense to me, and also offered a concrete strategy for moving forward in a postmodern world where knowledge and truth may be social constructs.
When we engage in dialogue, we bring with us our personal views of how the world works. Our cultural background shapes our perception of facts and theories in unique ways. These perceptual differences can account for much of the disagreements about watershed policies. Therefore the collaborative planners agreed with the postmodernists in the sense that knowledge is a social construct. But they diverged by pointing out that knowledge could be generated through productive dialogue. Despite our difference when we come to the table, if we listen, communicate and share points of view, then as a group we can create a new consensus, and ultimately, new knowledge, and a new truth. This epistemological view of how knowledge is generated and validated offers considerable insight. It suggests that deliberation by itself can generate knowledge, without adherence to any particular to a particular scientific method. Conversely, knowledge generated under the scientific epistemology may not be sufficient for social validity but that those findings should be inserted into the process of dialogue for validation. Ultimately, peers and contemporaries will determine the value of my work. My findings do not live in a social vacuum, and therefore if I seek relevance, it must be a part of the broader discussion.
The collaborative planners encouraged me to speak and listen carefully to the stakeholders in the watershed. They advised me to be aware of gender differences, class differences and social position, since each would probably influence local perceptions. They asked me: Who do you listen to? Who are you willing to learn from?
It was great to talk to Judith Innes who has practical experience implementing dialogue processes in California watersheds.
Some collaborative planners recommended that I hold a visioning process for the watershed that could bring the stakeholders together to discuss their conflicting views and priorities. Others suggested that instead of relying of GIS models to identify the ecosystem services, that I simply interview local residents and ask them what services they have identified.
While I was very interested in their approach, I pointed out that methodologically, my research would probably not use a collaborative planning process. Nevertheless, I quickly subscribed to their epistemological views. We agreed that understanding the value of dialogue would be useful throughout my career, especially since I will be collaborating with experts from different professional and cultural backgrounds.
By the end of my conversation with these planning theorists, it was clear that each of them had already influenced my intellectual formation. By knowing which each theory had to offer, I felt more prepared to engage in meaningful research.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment