Sociological studies sensitive to the issue of place are rarely labeled thus, and at the same time there are far too many of them to fit in this review. It may be a good thing that this research is seldom gathered up as a “sociology of place,” for that could ghettoize the subject as something of interest only to geographers, architects, or environmental historians. The point of this review is to indicate that sociologists have a stake in place no matter what they analyze, or how: The works cited below emplace inequality, difference, power, politics, interaction, community, social movements, deviance, crime, life course, science, identity, memory, history. After a prologue of definitions and methodological ruminations, I ask: How do places come to be the way they are, and how do places matter for social practices and historical change?

A Space for Place in Sociology

Part 1 The argumentative turn: policy institutions and practices: Policy discourse and the politics of Washington think tanks, Frank Fischer Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice - the case of acid rain in Great Britain, Maarten Hajer Political judgement and the policy cycle - the case of ethnicity arguments in the Netherlands, Robert Hoppe Counsel and consensus - norms of argumentation in health policy, Bruce Jennings. Part 2 Analytical concepts - frames, tropes, and narratives: Survey research as rhetorical trope - electric power planning arguments in Chicago, J.A. Throgmorton Frame reflective policy discourse, Martin Rein and Donald Schon Reading policy narratives - beginning, middle, and end, Thomas J. Kaplan Learning from practice stories - the priority of practical judgement, John Forester. Part 3 Theoretical perspectives: Policy anlysis and planning - from science to argumentation, John Dryzek Planning through debate - the communicative turn in planning theory, Patsy Healey Policy reforms as arguments, William Dunn Two worlds of policy discourse - consensual versus adversarial proposal selection, Duncan MacRae.

http://www.untag-smd.ac.id/files/Perpustakaan_Digital_2/POLICY%20ANALYSIS%20The%20Argumentative%20turn%20in%20policy%20analysis%20and%20planning.pdf

The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning

▪ Abstract Many theorists have long extolled the virtues of public deliberation as a crucial component of a responsive and responsible democracy. Building on these theories, in recent years practitioners—from government officials to citizen groups, nonprofits, and foundations—have increasingly devoted time and resources to strengthening citizen engagement through deliberative forums. Although empirical research has lagged behind theory and practice, a body of literature has emerged that tests the presumed individual and collective benefits of public discourse on citizen engagement. We begin our review of this research by defining “public deliberation”; we place it in the context of other forms of what we call “discursive participation” while distinguishing it from other ways in which citizens can voice their individual and collective views on public issues. We then discuss the expectations, drawn from deliberative democratic theory, regarding the benefits (and, for some, pitfalls) assumed to derive from p...

/pdf/public-deliberation-discursive-participation-and-citizen-4jddjnmfp1.pdf

Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature

The long-bemoaned gap between theory and practice in planning is closing as a new type of planning theorist is beginning to dominate the field. These theorists make the gap complaint moot because they take practice as the raw material of their inquiry. In this they differ from their predecessors, who did primarily armchair theorizing and systematic thinking about planning. These new theorists pursue the questions and puzzles that arise in their study of practice, rather than those which emerge from thinking about how planning could or should be. These new

Hazards and disaster planning theory’s emerging paradigm: communicative action and interactive practice

Thirty years ago, Alan Altshuler, in a devastating critique that has never been effectively answered, challenged the legitimacy of comprehensive planning and of planners' expertise. He called on the field to reinforce its theoretical arsenal. This article takes up his challenge, contending that not only have practices now arisen that make comprehensive planning possible, but also political and social theory has evolved to provide its intellectual grounding. The article argues that consensus building with stakeholders offers a model for planning that responds to each of Altshuler's critiques. Consensus building is shown to be founded on assumptions about the nature of knowledge, about the organization of interests, and about the nature of the public interest that differ from those Altshuler applied. Evidence is taken from eight in-depth case studies of consensus building over growth and environmental issues in California, and from a study of the New Jersey state planning process. The article concl...

Planning Through Consensus Building: A New View of the Comprehensive Planning Ideal

Abstract Information is a source of power in the planning process. This article begins by assessing five perspectives of the planner's use of information: those of the technician, the incremental pragmatist, the liberal advocate, the structuralist, and the “progressive.” Then several types of misinformation (inevitable or unnecessary, ad hoc or systematic) are distinguished in a reformulation of bounded rationality in planning, and practical responses by planning staff are identified. The role and ethics of planners acting as sources of misinformation are considered. In practice planners work in the face of power manifest as the social and political (mis)-man-agement of citizens' knowledge, consent, trust, and attention. Seeking to enable planners to anticipate and counteract sources of misinformation threatening public serving, democratic planning processes, the article clarifies a practical and politically sensitive form of “progressive” planning practice.

Deborah M. Kolb

Papers

Planning in the Face of Power.