Quarterly Journals of Urban and Regional Development Planning

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Publication Ethics

Indexing and Abstracting

Related Links

FAQ

Peer Review Process

Journal Metrics

News

Reviewers 2020-2021

Reviewers 2021

Reviewers of 2022

Reviewers of 2023-2024

A Systematic Review of the Processes of Knowledge and Action Interaction of Urban Planners

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD Candidate in Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Following the crisis of confidence in the profession based on technical rationality, a gap between theory (explicit knowledge) and practice has emerged in the field of urban planning. The objective of this research, within the framework of a systematic review, is to identify and compare approaches to the relationship between knowledge and action of urban planners and to expand them in planning thought and action. For this purpose, through the PRISMA practice guide, 584 sources were obtained from the Scopus, Web of Science, and Irandoc databases by searching for keywords within the time range until the end of 2022 and then by reviewing their titles, abstracts, and full texts in order, 44 sources were selected for synthesis. Subsequently, using the tools VOSviewer, Scholar GPT, and Excel, bibliometric and integrative studies were conducted on the sources. In the integrative studies, after coding, four approaches were identified. The practice-oriented approach, by emphasizing tacit knowledge, does not recognize explicit knowledge in action and is almost opposed to the praxis-oriented approach. Between these two, the contingent and reflective approaches rely on explicit and tacit knowledge in inverse proportions. These approaches reflect the plurality of situation-based discourses and decision-making structures in planning thought and action.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References
  • Alexander, Ernest R. (1997). “A mile or a millimeter? measuring the ‘planning theory-practice gap’.” Environment and Planning B. Planning and Design, 24, 3-6. https://doi.org/10.1068/b240003
  • Alexander, Ernest R. (1998). “Doing the ‘impossible’: notes for a general theory of planning.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 25, 667-680. https://doi.org/10.1068/b250667
  • Alexander, Ernest R. (1999). “Response to commentaries: planning theory and practice – mixing them or minding the gap.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1068/b260001
  • Alexander, Ernest R. (2003). “Response to why do planning theory.” Planning Theory, 2(3), 179-182. https://doi.org/10.1177/147309520323003
  • Alexander, Ernest R. (2005). “What do planners need to know? identifying needed competencies, methods, and skills.” Architectural and Planning Research, 22(2), 91-106. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43030728
  • Alexander, Ernest R. (2010). “Introduction: Does planning theory affect practice, and if so, how?” Planning Theory, 9(2), 99-107.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095209357862

  • Alexander, Ernest R. (2015). “There is no planning – only planning practices: notes for spatial planning theories.” Planning Theory, 15(1), 1-13.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095215594617

  • Alexander, Ernest R. (2018). How theory links research and practice: 70 years’ planning theory. In Thomas W. Sanchez, (Ed.). Planning knowledge and research. New York, and Oxon: Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315308715

  • Allmendinger, Phill, and Mark Tewdwr-Jones. (1997). “Mind the gap: planning theory-practice and the translation of knowledge into action – a comment on Alexander.” Environment and Planning B. Planning and Design, 24, 802-806.

https://doi.org/10.1068/b240802

  • Brereton, Pearl, Barbara A. Kitchenham, David Budgen, Mark Turner, and Mohamed Khalil. (2007). “Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain.” Systems and Software, 80(4), 571-583.
  • Campbell, Heather. (2012). “Planning to change the world: between knowledge and action lies synthesis.” Planning Education and Research, 32(2), 135-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2006.07.009
  • Campbell, Heather, John Forester, and Bishwapriya Sanyal. (2018). “Can we learn from our mistakes?” Planning Theory and Practice, 19(4), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2018.1486985
  • Cook, D. J., Cynthia D. Mulrow, and R. Brian Haynes. (1996). “Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions.” Ann Intern Med, 126, 376-380. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006
  • Cooke, Steven J., Amanda L. Leanson, Ian Bishop, Brett A. Bryan, Chundi Chen, Christopher Cvitanovic, Yang Fen, John Forester, Christine Furst, Jie Hu, Daniele La Rosa, Colin Meurk, Vivian M. Nguyen, Michael Paolisso, Yunfei Qi, Faith K. S. Chun, Katrina Szetey, Xinhao Wang, Yuncai Wang, Carla L. Archibald, and Nathan Young. (2021). “On the theory-practice gap in the environmental realm: perspectives from and for diverse environmental professionals.” Socio-Ecological Practice Research, 3, 243-255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-021-00089-0
  • Davoudi, Simin. (2015). “Planning as practice of knowing.” Planning Theory, 14(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095215575919
  • Dewey, John. (1997). Experience and education. New York: Simon and Schuster. Original work published 1938.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00131728609335764

  • Faludi, Aandreas, and Bas Waterhout. (2006). “Introducing evidence-based planning.” disP- The Planning Review, 42(165), 4-13.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2006.10556950

  • Fazli, Ghazal S., Maria I. Creatore, Flora I. Matheson, Sara Guilcher, Vered Kaufman-Shriqui, Heather Manson, Ashley Johns, and Gillian L. Booth. (2017). “Identifying mechanisms for facilitating knowledge to action strategies targeting the built environment.” BMC Public Health, 17(1), 1-9.

 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3954-4

  • Fischler, Raphael. (2012). Reflective practice. In Bishwapriya Sanyal, Lawrence J. Vale, and Christina D. Rosan, (Eds.), Planning ideas that matter: livability, territoriality, governance, and reflective practice. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London: Massachusetts institute of technology.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2017.1342374

  • Forester, John. (2019). “Five generations of theory–practice tensions: enriching socio‑ecological practice research.” Socio-Ecological Practice Research, 2, 111-119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-019-00033-3
  • Friedmann, John. (1987). Planning in the public domain: from Knowledge to action. New Jersey: Princeton university press.

 https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv10crf8d

  • Friedmann, John. (2003). “Why do planning theory?” Planning Theory, 2(1), 7-10.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095203002001002

  • Friedmann, John, and Barclay Hudson. (1974). “Knowledge and action: a guide to planning theory.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 40(1), 2-16.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01944367408977442

  • Gregory, Ann T., and Alan R. Denniss. (2018). “An introduction to writing narrative and systematic reviews – tasks, tips and traps for aspiring authors.” Heart, Lung and Circulation, 27, 893-898.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2018.03.027

  • Harris, Neil. (1997). “Orienting oneself to practice: a comment on Alexander.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24, 799-801.

https://doi.org/10.1068/b240799

  • Hasanpour Dehkordi, Ali, Elaheh Mazaheri, Hanan A. Ibrahim, Sahar Dalvand, and Reza Ghanei Gheshlagh. (2021). “How to write a systematic review: a narrative review.” Preventive Medicine, 12(27), 1-6.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350487148_How_to_Write_a_Systematic_Review_A_Narrative_Review

  • Healey, Patsy. (2008). “Knowledge flows, spatial strategy making, and the roles of academics.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(5), 861-881.

https://doi.org/10.1068/c0668

  • Hung, Fengwei, B. F. Hobbs, A. McGarity, and X. Chen. (2022). “A modeling framework for assessing the value of learning in dynamic adaptive planning: application to green infrastructure investment evaluation.” Water Resources Research, 58(8), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021WR031622
  • Innes de Neufville, Judith. (1983). “Planning theory and practice: bridging the gap.” Planning Education and Research, 3(1), 35-45.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X8300300105

  • Ison, Ray L., Kevin B. Collins, and Ben L. Iaquinto. (2021). “Designing an inquiry-based learning system: innovating in research praxis to transform science-policy-practice relations for sustainable development.” Systems Research and Behavorial Science, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2811
  • Kitchenham, Barbara. (2004). “Procedures for performing systematic reviews.” Keele, 33, 1-26. https://www.inf.ufsc.br/~aldo.vw/kitchenham.pdf
  • Kitchenham, Barbara. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Newcastle, and Durham: Keele university, and University of Durham.

https://legacyfileshare.elsevier.com/promis_misc/525444systematicreviewsguide.pdf

  • Kitchenham, Barbara, and Stuart Charters. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. In EBSE technical report. Newcastle, and Durham: Keele university, and University of Durham. https://ebse.webspace.durham.ac.uk/ebse-bibliography/guidelines-for-performing-systematic-literature-reviews-in-software-engineering/
  • Owens, Susan, Judith Petts, and Harriet Bulkeley. (2006). “Boundary work: knowledge, policy, and the urban environment.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 24, 633-643. https://doi.org/10.1068/c0606j
  • Panahi, Sirous, Jason Watson, and Helen Partridge. (2013). “Towards tacit knowledge sharing over social web tools.” Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(3), 379-397. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2012-0364
  • Polanyi, Michael. (2005). Personal knowledge: towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge. Original work published 1962.

https://download.tuxfamily.org/openmathdep/epistemology/Personal_Knowledge-Polanyi.pdf

  • Polanyi, Michael. (2009). The tacit dimension. Chicago and London: The university of Chicago press. Original work published 1966. https://monoskop.org/images/1/11/Polanyi_Michael_The_Tacit_Dimension.pdf
  • Rich, Robert F. (1991). “Knowledge creation, diffusion, utilization: perspectives of the founding editor of knowledge.” Science Communication, 12(3), 319-337. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554709101200308
  • Roux, Dirk J., Peter Novellie, Izak P. J. Smit, Joop de Kraker, Samantha M. Culloch-Jones, Luthando E. Dziba, Stefanie Freitag, and Danie J. Piennar. (2022). “Appraising strategic adaptive management as a process of organizational learning.” Journal of Environmental Management, 301, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113920
  • Saltz, Jeffrey S., and Ivan Shamshurin. (2016). “Big data team process methodologies: a literature review and the identification of key factors for a project’s success.” IEEE International Conference on Big Data, 2872-2879. https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData.2016.7840936
  • Sanyal, Bishwapriya. (2000). Planning’s three challenges. In Lloyd Rodwin, and Bishwapriya Sanyal, (Eds.), The profession of city planning; changes, images and challenges: 1950-2000. New York: Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315134253

  • Sanyal, Bishwapriya. (2002). “Globalization, ethical compromise and planning theory.” Planning Theory, 1(2), 116-123.

https://doi.org/10.1177/147309520200100202

  • Sanyal, Bishwapriya. (2020). “Book review: why plan? theory for practitioners.” Planning Theory, 20(3), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095220966683
  • Schon, Donald A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in Action. Basic books.

https://rauterberg.employee.id.tue.nl/lecturenotes/DDM110%20CAS/Schoen-1983%20Reflective%20Practitioner.pdf

  • Schon, Donald A. (1992). “The crisis of professional knowledge and the pursuit of an epistemology of practice.” Journal of Interprofessional Care, 6(1), 49-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-0785(05)80571-X
  • Schon, Donald A. (2000). Town planning: limits to reflection-in-action. In Lloyd Rodwin, and Bishwapriya Sanyal, (Eds.), The profession of city planning; changes, images and challenges: 1950-2000. New York: Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315134253

  • Taylor, Hazel. (2007). “Tacit knowledge: conceptualizations and operationalizations.” International Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(3), 60-73.

https://doi.org/10.4018/jkm.2007070104

  • Tennoy, Aud, Lisa Hansson, Enza Lissandrello, and Petter Naess. (2015). “How planners’ use and non-use of expert knowledge affect the goal achievement potential of plans: experiences from strategic land-use and transport planning processes in three Scandinavian cities.” Progress in Planning, 109, 1-32.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2015.05.002

  • Willson, Richard. (2018). A guide for the idealist: launching and navigating your planning career. New York and London: Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315111193

  • Willson, Richard. (2021). Reflective planning practice: theory, cases, and methods. New York and London: Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429290275

Quarterly Journals of Urban and Regional Development Planning
Volume 10, Issue 34 - Serial Number 34
September 2025
Pages 1-46
Files
Share
How to cite
Statistics