Collaborative planning

From Geography

Revision as of 09:41, 23 October 2012

Collaborative planning

Collaborative planning is an approach developed by David Godschalk and William Mills in the 1960s. It promotes an extensive dialogue between planners and other stakeholders, mostly citizens. A planner has to inform the citizens about the possibilities, and then to map the desires of this group. Discussion groups, or focus groups, and massmedia can play a large role in this approach (Brooks, 2002, p. 150). Collaborative planning is a dialogic form of decision-making. It catches up with big shifts in the modern society. Nowadays, post-modernism claims, that there is no universal truth. According to that, it is wrong to give full power to one decision-maker. All stakeholders have the right to tell their opinion. Moreover, contemporary society is not only being directed by government. A lot of power is in the hands of enterprises, citizens, and non-governmental organizations (Brand & Gaffikin, 2007, p. 283). This highlights the importance of a planning approach in which governments communicate with other actors in society. A drawback in collaborative planning is the paradox between the comprehensive communication between stakeholders, and the wish for quick decisions. At one hand, the planner wants to engage many people and groups, but at the other hand, most important decisions have to be made in a short time (ibid.).

Four key dimensions

According to Brand & Graffkin, we can distinguish four key dimensions to clarify and delimit the conceptual framework of collaborative planning: [ontology], [epistemology], [ideology] and [methodology].

Criticism by Brand and Gaffkin

Brand and Gaffkin (ibid., pp. 305-308) are rather critical about the collaborative approach to planning. Yet they appreciate the basic values, which regard to its underlying ideology. Among the positive aspects then is the fact that the approach is aiming for more “sustainable”, “equitable” and “participative” procedures and outcomes. Brand and Gaffkin would also agree on the “need” for solutions to deal with “diversity” and for “pluralistic politics” (Brand et al, 2007, p. 306). However the authors make an effort to show up alternatives how to reach the desired acknowledgement of “deliberate democracy", “pluralism”, simultaneity of “divergent cultural attachment”, “self-determination”, “inclusion” and “solidarity” (ibid., p. 307). This leads them to favour an agonistic approach over the collaborative one, since they sharply criticize the way how collaborative planning fails to attain its own goals:

They especially question the possibility to attain inclusion in the process if it is at the same time meant to be guided by rationality of argumentation. Additionally they doubt the willingness of the most powerful to participate (ibid., p. 306) referring also to a case-study of collaborative planning in Northern Ireland where these factors resulted to be key-problems. They observed “superficial accords” as result of too” innocuous and inoffensive” debate (ibid., p. 305). “Constructive ambiguity” is dominating outcomes in the sense that “policy and planning directions remain inexact” and thus creates confusion. This, according to Brand and Gaffkins observation, leads to a “fragmentation of leadership”, “diffusion of resources”, “poor policy coherence” and “compromised sustainability” (ibid.). The main critique focuses around the “prioritization of consensus”, which actually produced “non-committal”, “vulnerable euphemism”, “surface agreement” and “equivocation” (ibid.). Brand and Gaffkin regard the “Habermasian” theory underlying the approach as root to these problems. Following these theoretical insights by Jürgen Habermas conflict is approached “through universalizing norms”. What applies to the procedural aspect the participants are supposed to argue in a “rationalistic” manner, which is not purely possible for human beings (ibid., p. 306). A “search for truth through reflective and reciprocal debate” seems an adequate tool in planning, unless “emphasis” is only given to finding commonalities and “consensus” (as it is the case for collaborative planning), by which conflicts are defused and “expression of distinction or dissent” are restricted (ibid., p. 306).

Alternatives by Brand and Gaffkin

Therefore Brand and Gaffkin prefer and suggest the alternative “agonistic” approach, wherein it is “not consensus” which is strived for. Instead it is about expressing “differentiated plurality” and creates an arena for the “possibility of irreconcilable disagreement” (ibid.). The authors also consider the approach as taking into account “multiple, inclusive forms of communication” and as recognizing “multiple, fractured identities”. The result then might be “dialogic” and “singular”, or even ”unitary ´common sense`, but “not necessarily” (ibid.). What is more, according to Brand and Gaffkin, they have been observing moments of creation of “confidence” and “dexterity” during the Northern Ireland case study, whenever the way of approaching problems became more dominated by agonism (ibid., p. 305). Hereby they stress the “need for possible difference and disagreement”, which goes along with “respect” to finally achieve the aim of “civic empowerment” and fruitful “negotiation” (ibid., p. 308).

References

• Brand, R. & Gaffikin, F. (2007). Collaborative planning in an uncollaborative world. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

• Brooks, M.P. (2002). Planning theory for practitioners. Chicago: American Planning Association.

Contributors

• Page created by User:BoudewijnIdema, 6 October 2011, 11:45

• Page enhanced by Janna Völpel JannaVolpel 15:40, 7 May 2012 (CEST)

• Page enhanced by Lieke Vogels, 23 october 2012