The Role of the Planning Scholar

Scholar as Independent Outsider

The researcher as outsider classification situates planning academics within the general social science tradition, carrying out what Healey (1991, 448) calls research on planning. In this model of social science research, scholars adopt a role in which they are independent from the planning practitioners, civil society workers, community groups and citizens that they are interfacing with as research subjects, an outsider looking in. To maximize independence from the research subjects, the research is sponsored by an independent funding council, rather than a government department, company, charity, or community-based organization. As Breheny (1989, 452) contends, independent academic research can thus have applied or theoretical foci. It can aim to address a specific policy challenge, focus on predominantly technical issues that might have policy implications, emphasize more theoretical considerations with only a “vague” policy implication, or serve as trenchant social critique.

Importantly, the scholar as independent outsider categorization describes the positioning of scholars relative to their subjects rather than the epistemological assumptions of the researcher or the research methods typically employed. In the planning field, scholars who assume the role of the independent outsider have worked from positivist epistemological foundations seeking generalizable propositions about the actions of planners or policy outcomes. A case in point is the growth of quantitative research looking to establish statistical correlations between urban form, land use mix, transportation mode choices, and personal health outcomes.

Planning scholars have also taken on interpretive epistemologies, typically drawing on small sample–sized qualitative methods such as in-depth interviews, ethnographic case studies, and reflective practice, to produce deeply contextual knowledge and learn about the inner workings of a profession. For instance, ethnographic studies of day-to-day planning practice by John Forester (1989, 2009), Charles Hoch (1994), Howell Baum (1983), and Judith Innes (Innes and Gruber 2005) have contributed to key insights about the application of a critical communicative planning theory, citizen engagement, and the governance processes used to manage resource conflicts (Watson 2002; Dalton 1989). Ethnographic approaches by independent scholars have been used to study unequal dynamics of power in planning and development projects, and concepts of the “just city” in the Global North and South (Winkler 2009; Fainstein 2010; Beard 2002; Mason and Beard 2008). And critical reflections by senior planning practitioners–turned-scholars have shed light on the politics of planning and the role of the planner in driving change (Krumholz and Forester 1990; Ford 2010). Most major works in the study of planning practice and communicative planning have been produced by scholars who themselves have worked as planning practitioners, consultants, and activists, and it is clear that insights and reflections from these experiences inform their research. At the same time, the empirical foundation of these studies tends to be social science methods in which the researcher is independent from the subjects.

In terms of desired impact, it is commonly reported that the primary objective for scholars carrying out independent research within the social science tradition is academic impact, communicated through the publication of scholarly texts. “Most scholars are concerned with publication mainly and typically do not focus on public exposure,” writes Flyvbjerg (2012). “Their focus is on exposure and citations in academic media, that is, on scholarly impact; the incentives of academic institutions encourage this.” According to Dalton (1989), even applied studies of planning practice have not typically been widely communicated outside of academia to an audience of practitioners, a conclusion that is repeated by Sager (2009) two decades later.

For early career researchers, Flyvbjerg’s point about the institutional incentives to publish in scholarly formats is especially pertinent. Tenure and promotion criteria at most universities give the greatest weight to academic publishing (Myers and Banerjee 2005), and the vast majority of the research articles published in the top planning journals are produced by researchers assuming the role of an independent outsider. Against this backdrop, some early career scholars assuming more embedded relationships with their subjects have reported feeling angst about the necessity to publish their findings in the top journals necessary to achieve promotion (Reardon et al. 1993, 86-88).

This emphasis on scholarly impact does not mean that academics assuming the role of the independent outsider are unconcerned with the policy or social impact of their research. Once a piece of research is complete, many independent planning scholars develop recommendations for practice, make public presentations on their results, serve on commissions and inquiries, and summarize their findings in popular formats. Nevertheless, in their independent outsider role, scholars do not have a direct input into policy development networks or processes, and any action stemming from the research may be quite indirect (Healey 1991). For the bulk of social science research, “most observers now agree that the impact is indirect and long-term,” argues Pal (1985, 358). “Social science research is only one source of information used in the policy process, and often its impact may amount to no more than confirming pre-existing suspicions.”

For many scholars assuming the role of the independent outsider, then, their primary emphasis on achieving impact within academic forums provides an opportunity to carry out research that is relatively free from conflict with research subjects in professional practice or the agencies that employ them. This can be achieved by either consciously choosing to avoid the public discourse potentially associated with their findings or because of a lack of awareness among practitioners. Yet the independent planning scholar faces particular types of potential conflicts with the research subjects and society at large. As an outsider, tensions can arise over access to government, corporate or civil society documents, particularly when scholars are studying politically sensitive topics or in areas where probity may be an issue. When planning practitioners are aware of completed research studies, particularly those that are critical of their decisions, they have often challenged the independent outsider as not being fully informed of the complexities of planning in “real world” settings. Finally, as an outsider to the processes of transforming knowledge into action, planning scholars have often found that their research results are being used in unexpected and unintended ways, to support moral positions, policies, or planning practices that they personally oppose (Sager 2009, 3). In response to the limitation of the traditional role of the social scientist, planning scholars are taking on greater responsibility for the public impact of their research, by assuming roles that more deeply embed researchers alongside their subjects in the production and dissemination of knowledge.

Scholar as Public Planner

The most natural extension of academic planning research into the public realm is through the public model of planning scholarship, given the discipline’s historical roots in practice and action. Public planning scholarship can be defined as research on topics that are relevant to society, presented in language, formats, and forums that are accessible to the general public. Public planning scholarship starts from studies that Gans (2009, 125) describes as “eye-opening: original, insightful, and attention-attracting empirical and theoretical research on topics useful and relevant to all parts of the general public.” Such research is typically carried out by scholars who adopt the role of independent observers. The research can draw on either positivist or interpretivist epistemologies, as well as quantitative or qualitative methodologies (Flyvbjerg 2001).

A key differentiation between public scholarly activity and the role of the traditional scholar as an independent outsider is the multiplicity of objectives that public planning scholars have for their work, which are inherently action oriented. In line with Foucault’s description of the public intellectual, public planning scholars tend to see themselves as “a dealer in instruments, a recipe maker, an indicator of objectives, a cartographer, a sketcher of plans, a gunsmith” (cited in Flyvbjerg and Richardson 2002, 54). In this context, communicating the research results publicly is a key mechanism through which social change is achieved.

Thus public planning scholarship aims to overcome the potential lack of public awareness or impetus to act on findings published in scholarly outlets. This is achieved by disseminating research into the public sphere, initiating dialogues with specialist and nonspecialist communities, and building a base of public pressure and strategic interest for those in power to take action. Public planning scholars have raised awareness of their findings by attracting mass media publicity, summarizing their findings for popular forums, and using social media. They have also reported to government or public bodies, participated in nonacademic conferences and meetings, and collaborated with professional societies and independent government auditors.

In planning, public scholar activities have varied in scale from interventions into local planning discourses, to actions that attract national and even international attention. A few examples, selected based on a perusal of online media databases and social media sites, highlight the diverse planning topics and research methodologies on which public scholarly activities are based. They also highlight the different approaches that scholars have followed to engage as public scholars.

Mildred Warner has translated the findings of her statistical models comparing local government service costs under public and private provision into articles for a popular audience, and actively networked with trade unions and governments to promote the policy implications of her findings (see Warner and Hefetz 2010). Prominent planning scholars in a variety of specialties have had their independent research findings publicized in the mainstream media around the world, including Peter Hall in city planning history and regeneration; Bill Rees in sustainability planning and ecological footprint analysis; George Galster in housing studies; Donald Shoup, Martin Wachs, and Lawrence Frank in the transportation field; and Bent Flyvbjerg in infrastructure planning. This media exposure has been complemented by invited meetings with senior planning practitioners and policy makers and public lectures. The urbanist Richard Florida spreads his ideas on cities and the creative class as a Senior Editor with the Atlantic magazine, and he reaches a substantial 130,000 followers through his feed on the social media site Twitter. And while scholars of planning practice have not been the most widely cited planning academics in the national mainstream media because of the specialist interest of their research, many have taken other approaches to publicize the results of their research. John Forester has served as a mediator of public disputes, while he and other scholars have made efforts to communicate the results of their research back to community groups and planning practitioners through lectures and workshops.

An important characteristic of the public planner model of scholarship is the public presentation of scholars as “the expert” in their field. To maintain their claim on professional expertise in the public discourse, public planning scholars typically limit their commentary to the specific topic of their research area. In their public role, public planning scholars may affiliate with but tend not to become leading members of specific state, corporate, activist, or advocacy movements, as this could be seen to influence the perspective of the scholarly evidence presented. For public scholars, then, Glenn (2009, 144) argues that reward does not come from “extrinsic” approval from movement allies, media attention, professional recognition, or financial remuneration. Rather, the public scholar is typically “motivated primarily by the prospect of such psychic rewards as a feeling that he/she is making the world a better place.”

Although academics may assume the role of the public scholar in order to feel like they are making a positive difference with their work, the emphasis on attracting media and public attention to research findings that may be critical of those in positions of authority can lead to adversarial relationships with the original research subjects. Senior planning staff, community leaders, or politicians who voluntarily participated in the scholarly portion of the research study may become upset if they are subsequently the target of public criticism by the planning scholar and mobilization for change within the community. Conflicts may be exacerbated if scholars are seen to be emphasizing the most eye-opening, contentious, or provocative parts of their research in order to attract media attention, at the expense of a more nuanced presentation of the research results. This raises the ethical question of whether researchers carrying out independent scholarly research with an eye toward future public scholarly activity must inform their research subjects in advance of the highly public way that the findings could be used (even if the subject’s personal identity is kept strictly confidential). Such a step would likely have an impact on participation rates from practicing planners and thereby reduce the level of insight that could be derived from primary scholarly research; it would also result in a more meaningful informed consent process for those taking part in planning research.

At the same time, one intriguing observation about public scholarly efforts is that they complement rather than challenge traditional models of scholarship. The authority and persuasiveness of the planning scholar as expert in the eye of the media and the public is typically enhanced when research findings are published in top scholarly journals. Therefore, public planning scholars do not replace or downplay the importance of scholarly publishing. On the contrary, scholarly publishing in top academic journals typically forms the basis for successful public scholarly activity.

As members of an applied academic discipline that attracts scholars interested in theory and action, planning scholars have gravitated toward assuming more public roles. Nevertheless, the nature of today’s academy poses a paradox for scholars interested in assuming such a position. On one hand, university administrators and planning department heads like it when their scholars assume more public roles. These public scholarly activities reinforce the relevance of the university in society, increase the visibility of the department, and attract interest from students and potential funders. On the other hand, such popular activities count for little in the metrics that are used by university administrators to compare and evaluate departments, which tend to emphasize scholarly publications. Additionally the considerable time dedicated toward public scholarly activities is not well credited within the tenure and promotions process. Faced with intense workload pressures and the challenge of carving out a distinctive voice within the scholarly literature, junior scholars face difficult decisions about how much time and effort to dedicate toward public scholarly activity.

Scholar as Contractor

Like public planning scholarship, the researcher as contractor is another interface with planning practice that aims to increase the social impact and policy relevance of research activities, while also generating new revenue streams from social science research. During the past thirty years, there has been a sea change in attitudes toward academics taking on consultancy projects. “A decade ago,” Breheny wrote in 1989, “such work was frowned upon, and was largely carried out in secret. Now it is positively encouraged, and can be used in making a case for promotion in some institutions” (p. 451).

Contract research can be categorized as what Healey (1991, 448) calls research for planning. Research for planning involves practice-based scholarship. The research– subject relationship is structured around a client–provider interface, with the scholar working to produce specific research outputs for governments, private firms, international development agencies, and nongovernmental organizations. Scholars can be hired to carry out ex ante or ex post evaluations of proposed plans and policies, and serve in the role of a peer reviewer who evaluates the merits of plans that have already been developed (Pal 1985). Another type of relationship sees academics working in an advisory role, providing strategic advice on the policy implications of their scholarly research. A cursory review of resumes publicly posted online by planning scholars shows that consulting work is widespread in specialties including transportation, sustainability planning, social policy planning, international development planning, and citizen participation and community engagement.

In each case, academics are situated in the role of an expert, bringing their theoretical or technical capabilities to address an applied planning challenge. The researcher may be positioned as an independent outsider or may increasingly come to be seen as an insider that is part of the organizational team. Importantly, it may appear that planning consultancy work lends itself most naturally to positivist epistemologies and large sample–sized methodologies. Yet planning scholars are also hired to carry out studies that aim to understand stakeholder and community perceptions of policy changes and outcomes from their own perspective, thus taking on more of an interpretivist epistemology (Miraftab 2004, 98). A key benefit of the growth in planning academics working as contractors is that it breaks down the perceived barrier between theory and practice (Beard and Basolo 2009). This provides academic planners with deeper insight and appreciation of the practice of planning, which can then inform future teaching and research.

Structuring the researcher as a service provider has significant impacts on both the research outputs and the nature of the relationship between the researcher and the subject. By working closely with the client, researchers gain privileged access to data sources, professional job sites, and social settings, providing a window into the practice of planning that may have been inaccessible had they been working as an independent outsider. At the same time, the consulting-based client–provider relationship has the potential to distort the fundamental underpinning of academic research, scholarly independence. The client can tacitly or explicitly influence the results of the research, by directing the types of questions asked, the data available, the research methods used, and the dissemination of the results. In this context, even when academic consultants are hired to carry out an “independent” evaluation, they may face the same pressures as any other paid consultant to deliver findings that meet the client’s expectations.

The relationship between the client and service provider has the potential to remain conflict free. This likelihood is increased if the study results agree with the client’s interests, or critical findings are reported in a forum or manner that is approved by the client. Conflict and tensions can emerge, however, if unfavorable results are reported in a way that contradicts the expected protocols of the client. In particular, while academics are used to having the freedom to publish their findings in the venues of their choice, under the professional planning code of conduct, professional planners are required to “respect the client or employer right to confidentiality of information gathered through a professional relationship” (Canadian Institute of Planners 2004, 3). To this end, it would be considered highly unethical to publicize any study findings in an unauthorized forum no matter how theoretically relevant or informative to future practice, barring the discovery of a criminal activity during the engagement. Additionally, conflicts between the researcher and subject can emerge if a planning scholar is engaged in a consulting relationship with a client on one project while at the same time conducting independent scholarly research that may be critical of the same organization.

Finally, the consultancy approach allows planning academics the prospect of driving meaningful social change, by working closely with client organizations to address timely challenges. Moreover, reports and studies published in partnership with the client can gain distribution and attention from decision makers and the general public that far exceeds the reach of most purely academic publishing. At the same time, “the flow of knowledge generated from such research into practical action is neither certain nor straightforward to identify” (Healey 1991, 448). The impact of research produced through consulting engagements is limited if the advice goes unheeded, or the research results are co-opted or suppressed without other avenues available for publication. As Pal (1985, 364) writes, the process of producing knowledge in a consulting relationship is inherently political: “Research which is incongruent with organizational interests or routine will be dismissed and indeed, organizations may try to pose research problems in such a way as to bias the results and get the analysis they want.”

While universities are increasingly supportive of scholars undertaking consulting activities, there continue to be both formal and informal constraints on such endeavors. Formally, many universities impose time and/or financial limitations on the amount of outside consulting that a faculty member can undertake per year. Moreover, there are questions about who keeps the income generated through consulting activities: is it allocated to students and research overhead paid to the university department, or does the scholar personally collect any income generated? Informally, resentments can build toward colleagues who are seen to be dedicating substantial amounts of time toward consulting, both because of the additional personal income generated and also a perception that they are academics for hire. Consulting also raises issues about the republication of research findings in multiple outlets, which academic journals have become increasingly sensitive to as non-peer-reviewed reports garner wider distribution.

A related challenge is that the prospect of turning consulting-based studies into scholarly publications varies across specializations within planning. In the transportation specialty, for instance, it is common for large government or industry funded research projects to be converted into scholarly articles, provided the source of funding is acknowledged. And reflective practice has been a source of scholarly insight into the failings of rational comprehensive planning and its alternatives (Schon 1983; Innes 1995; Friedmann 2011; Krumholz and Forester 1990). In other planning specialties such as urban design, globalization studies, and environmental planning, conversely, relatively little contractor-based research has been published in the top scholarly journals. Thus, for many junior scholars in particular, decisions around whether to engage in consulting-based research activities are wrapped up in considerations of how their activities will be perceived by their colleagues, and the extent to which a substantial commitment to consulting work will contribute to scholarly publications.

Scholar as Community-Based Planner

While each of the preceding models of scholarship privilege the expert role of planning scholars relative to their research subjects and the general public, the scholar as community-based planner introduces a substantially different role for the academic researcher. “If planners should become more like actors in their passionate commitment to the action itself,” John Friedmann questions in Planning in the Public Domain (1987, 46), “what would happen to their claims about objective knowledge, and to their special status as ‘experts’?” The same question could be provocatively asked about planning academics that become increasingly embedded in their research context and carry out research aimed at empowering the subjects that they work alongside.

Central to the community-based model of planning scholarship is a repositioning of the researcher from carrying out studies on the subject population or for a client organization, to carrying out research in partnership with those who would otherwise be considered the research subjects. This reflects a “bottom up/bottom sideways” approach to scholarship that acknowledges a very different power–knowledge relationship. It is predicated on partnerships involving shared control and shared resources, with the explicit objective of driving community development and social change (Reardon 2005, 86). The role of the community-based planning scholar is rooted in what Friedmann (1973) describes as the transactive style of planning. Transactive planning begins from the epistemological foundation that there are multiple types of knowledge, both professional and experiential, and that knowledge is best produced through human relations based on reciprocity, empathy, and trust. Against this backdrop, deep social learning is achieved through the formation of lasting personal relationships and close partnerships between so-called experts and community stakeholders and organizations. As close partnerships are formed, joint strategic actions support a process of learning by doing (Sandercock 1998).

Planning scholars have been active in undertaking community-based research initiatives, often through formal community–university partnerships, service-based learning courses, or in-class assignments (Schuman 2005). Scholars have participated in community-based research in inner city neighborhoods in the vicinity of their university (Hartman 2002; Baum 2000; Soja 2010, 157), in postdisaster zones such as New Orleans (Reardon et al. 2009), and as part of international development projects in the Global South (Sletto 2010).

A contemporary leader in this community-based form of scholarship in planning is Ken Reardon. Reardon’s approach is to select a local organization within a marginalized neighborhood that is interested in working collaboratively with a university partner in a participatory process of local community development and empowerment planning (Reardon et al. 1993, 73). From this starting point, Reardon and his colleagues and students carry out local research projects to understand the built form and the social and institutional challenges facing the community from multiple perspectives.

Importantly, the university partner applies technical expertise and professional research skills to the project. However, the types of research questions, agenda setting, and potential problem solutions are not generated from academic theory alone but through a collaborative process of dialogue with members from the local community partner organization to understand their top priorities. Through this process of mutual learning that spans over many years, knowledge and capacity is produced that empowers local community members to participate meaningfully in the formation of public policy, and advocate on their own behalf in the midst of competing interests (Reardon et al. 2009).

As an explicit form of action-oriented research targeting community development, impact outside of the academic realm is the primary measure of success for scholars assuming a community-based role. Moreover, when community-based research is coupled with student instruction, transformative learning outcomes are another key goal (Schuman 2005). Conversely, publishing research findings in scholarly formats is less of a priority, which is compounded by the immense time commitments associated with engaging in community-based planning activities. Therefore, while planning scholars are active in undertaking community-based research activities, relatively few scholarly publications draw on this research interface.

A key distinction for community-based models of scholarship is that the researcher often collaborates closely with the subjects in strategizing and disseminating the research results to achieve maximum impact. In this way, the role of the community-based planning scholar is inherently political, and shifts from that of an independent outsider to a deeply embedded social actor. Through their dissemination activities, community-based scholars themselves become a part of the often contentious policy and political discourse related to their research implementation—both as experts and as agents mobilizing for specific courses of action. Ever present in such collaborative scholar–community relationships, even among practitioners who make skillful efforts to conduct ethical research, are tensions around who speaks for marginalized communities and what is in it for those whose story is being told (Sandercock and Attili 2010; Sandercock 2010a; Reardon et al. 1993; Reardon et al. 2009; Nyden and Wiewel 1992).

Furthermore, there are institutional pressures and constraints within the academy that limit the potential for scholars to assume community-based research roles, especially at the early career stage. Funding community-based research can be challenging, as some granting councils have resisted supporting projects where resources will be shared with community-based partners. Scholars have also been hesitant to enter into multiyear partnership commitments when faced with career instability or prospective job relocations. Most limiting, however, is the narrow extent to which community-based research is credited in tenure and promotion decisions. In faculty appraisals at most research-intensive universities, community-based research activities that do not lead to scholarly publications tend to be viewed as a type of service contribution, which are given secondary priority to excellence in research and teaching. Thus as Checkoway (1998, 360) concludes, “some faculty pursue service [through community-based scholarship] with fervor regardless of its rewards, but other faculty become conditioned to regard service as a distraction from work or a threat to their careers.”

Scholar as Activist

The final role that I would like to highlight is the scholar-activist. Within the social sciences, there is a longstanding tradition of scholars moving beyond the position of partnering with specific marginalized communities to cocreate knowledge that supports empowerment. Instead, some scholars have become fully participating members in activist networks and organizations that push for specific policy changes, or particular societal transformations (Piven 2010). To this end, the activist-scholar does not enter into a partnership relationship to work with the subjects as in the community-based research role but rather is a member of the group upon which their research is focused. In planning and closely related disciplines, activist-scholars have participated in and written on the antiglobalization movement (Routledge 2008; Chatterton 2008), housing and social justice issues (Leavitt and Saegert 1990; Leavitt and Heffernan 2005), economic development and poverty reduction (Nelson and Wolf-Powers 2010), and feminist and gender equity struggles. For activist-scholars, research flows directly out of their participation in the social movement. It is directed toward problematizing what are seen to be dubious social and political practices from the movement’s given perspective, and examines the tactics and strategies of the social movement that have delivered favorable or unfavorable outcomes (Calhoun 2008).

The role of the activist-scholar within planning can be seen to be modeled within the tradition of the insurgent or radical planner (Friedmann 1987). “Insurgent planning practices,” Miraftab (2009, 33) argues, “are characterized as counter-hegemonic, transgressive and imaginative.” They explicitly aim to be action oriented and transformational, participating in an oppositional type of practice intent on grasping control away from the powerful (Sandercock 1998, 129).

For activist-scholars, then, impact from their work is defined in the broadest terms, both personally and professionally. As activist-scholar Jenny Pickerill (2008, 483) writes, “I loved the thrill of being subversive, the amazing solidarity of friendships made in protest, and the empowerment of feeling part of something changing.” At the same time, she laments the delicate balance between the professional pressure to publish reflections on her activism in top scholarly outlets, and also allocating sufficient time and energy toward the frontline work of direct action campaigns, organizing community events, and speaking at rallies alongside her activist counterparts (Piven 2010; Chatterton 2008; Calhoun 2008).

More so than any of the other four scholarly roles, activist-scholars have tended to eschew the positioning of the scholar as an expert and embrace the risks associated with “going native.” Through what can be years of personal engagement in a social movement, activist-scholars commonly interface with their research subjects as friends or comrades in arms, a clear transgression of scholarly independence from the perspective of traditional social sciences but a source of key insight for the scholar-activist (Piven 2010). Janet Conway, for instance, argues that the scholar-as-activist role provides an exclusive firsthand window into the processes of social mobilization for change, a privileged position that is not available to scholars assuming any other role.

Activist practice is a distinct and essential source of knowledge—one that can be communicated but not really known by those who have never co-created social movement processes as activists. For those who wish to change the world and believe that human agency is central to that possibility, the knowledge arising from activist practice is specific, irreducible, and essential. (Conway 2004)

Despite the potential to develop unique forms of knowledge drawn out of firsthand experience, the activist-scholar role is replete with contradictions and potential conflicts that limit the prevalence of this approach. Activist-scholars face many of the same potential conflicts with their research subjects as those generated when researchers work in community-based roles. Ever present are challenges related to critical distance from the research subjects, openness of inquiry to differing perspectives, and who has the authority to speak and act on behalf of marginalized or leaderless groups (Piven 2010; Calhoun 2008). In a context where activist-scholars are deeply embedded as participants within a social movement, critiques from movement comrades that the scholar has “sold out” or is damaging the cause can also be highly personal (Pickerill 2008, 483).

At the same time, activist-scholars face similar institutional barriers within the academy as community-based researchers, particularly the limited recognition for activist work in tenure and promotion decisions. Additionally, the overtly political nature of activist practice can create tensions with academic colleagues who do not share the same views, or do not condone the tactics of the social movement itself (Hartman 1989). Thus while many planning scholars are active in nongovernmental organizations and social movements, which informs their development of research ideas, teaching, and curriculum development, far fewer scholars formally draw on their participation in social movements as a central research methodology.

Boundary Crossing

Thus far, for the purpose of descriptive simplicity, I have presented each category as essentially a distinct independent grouping. In practice, many researchers engage in multiple scholarly roles on the same project, expanding the depth of knowledge created and increasing the range of possible impacts (scholarly knowledge, teaching and curriculum development, personal growth and reflection, social change). However, such boundary crossings also create unique tensions and potentials for conflict with the research subjects, as well as implications for carrying out the research itself.

In planning, scholars commonly blend consultancy or activist roles with simultaneous efforts to carry out more traditional social science research as an independent outsider. In these instances, privileged access to information and social settings through consultancy or activist roles are used as a foundation of personal insight to inform the types of questions asked through more traditional scholarly efforts. Community-based, activist and public scholarly roles are also often combined within the same project, to capture multiple perspectives and ways of knowing, elevate public awareness about research findings, and provide a lever for change.

At the cutting edge in experimenting with the adoption of multiple scholarly roles within the same research project is Leonie Sandercock. Sandercock and her collaborator Giovanni Attili explore the way that digital ethnography and narrative-based story telling on film can be used to foster community engagement, policy dialogue, and ultimately social transformation and change (Sandercock and Attili 2010). In their most recent film, Finding our Way, Sandercock and Attili examine the searing history of conflict that two First Nations bands, the Burns Lake Band and the Cheslatta Carrier Nation, have had with their adjacent settler villages in Northern British Columbia. For Sandercock, adopting three interwoven scholarly roles during the film’s production and subsequent collaborative planning initiative is central to achieving her ultimate objectives for the project.

With our film, we are being the public scholars, setting out the facts of colonization and especially of Indian Residential Schools, with the intent of informing a still largely ignorant non-Native population. We are setting out a contemporary policy challenge. How to move forward to new relationships/partnerships, given this toxic history. We are not pushing a specific answer, but an answer is embedded in the Cheslatta story of forgiveness, healing, and developing partnerships. We are allowing them to tell their story, so it’s an empowerment model. And it’s also very much an activist model, in that I am actively using the film (along with my First Nations partners) to work for change in the Burns Lake community and beyond, through the carefully designed dialogue processes that we build around the film, as well as through our ongoing planning work in these communities. (Sandercock, personal communication, 2011)

Despite strong synergies between the multiple roles that Sandercock and Attili assumed, such an approach also poses potential challenges. For one, research subjects, partners, and the wider community may not be able to easily distinguish between the various roles that scholars have assumed on the same project. This can lead to perceptions in some quarters that the researchers are working for rather than with the partner organizations, or tensions around protocols such as paying research partners for their participation. For another, it can be challenging and time consuming to raise funds for scholarly roles that encompass both direct research expenses and community development activities. In sum, while assuming multiple roles on the same project is a common practice and holds great promise to advance the diverse objectives that researchers have for their studies, there are ethical and practical issues that scholars must be aware of and actively navigate.

(Re)Defining Research Impact?

There is a growing ambivalence, among scholars, university administrators, politicians, and the general public, about the societal impact of academic research in the social sciences. Planning is particularly conflicted, given that the origins of the discipline emerged directly from planning practice, and there remains a fundamental emphasis on knowledge informing action that persists through to today. Within the scholarly discipline of planning, there is disagreement on the definition and criteria that should be used to identify high-quality and high-impact publications. Goldstein and Maier’s 2010 article in the Journal of Planning Education and Research on journal rankings was followed by a tidal wave of commentaries in a subsequent issue, highlighting the wide diversity of perspectives on how scholarly research quality and impact should be measured. How then to understand the quality and impact of research where only part of the ultimate objective of the researcher is to inform the scholarly discourse through academic publication, while a parallel goal is to achieve some type of policy or social transformation?

At its best, social science research is carried out on issues that matter to diverse communities, with the results communicated in a way that informs public dialogue, policy choices, and action in those communities. Research impact in this context is broadly characterized as the potential to contribute to better decisions and outcomes, defined by commonly held values of liberal democracies such as greater equality and more informed deliberations (Flyvbjerg 2012). Or as Friedmann (1987, 44) succinctly summarizes, “If we identify actions rather than decisions as the principal focus of planning practice, then being effective in the world becomes the decisive criterion.”

It is clear that this broad action-oriented definition of impact is what drives many scholars in their work. While scholarly publishing is important in contributing to the formation of an academic discipline and guides merit pay and promotion decisions (Goldstein and Maier 2010), for many scholars it is not an end in itself. As Reardon articulates, seeing one’s research lead to action provides strong personal satisfaction: “I know that this program, something we created in our office and did the research for, saves lives. That’s a very powerful narcotic: to feel like you have made a small difference. I think we all need that” (Reardon et al. 1993, 85).

Conversely, the realization that most scholarly research has only minimal societal impact has proven a palpable disappointment for many researchers, not only professionally but also personally. For instance, Oliver (1992, 101) proclaims that “research on disability has had little influence on policy and made no contribution to improving the lives of disabled people. In fact, up to now the process of research production has been alienating both for disabled people and for researchers themselves.” And Gilbert (2011, 724) concludes that academics are largely at fault for their relative ineffectiveness in informing policy and practice. “We write too much, too much that is irrelevant to the public good, and our thoughts are often shrouded in an academic verbalise that alienates all but the most devout member of the peer group.”

Across the social sciences, a burgeoning debate is taking place about whether scholars should take on roles that explicitly orient their position within the production of knowledge more toward policy relevance, in an effort to increase the societal impact of their work (Martin 2001; Mead 2010; Jeffries 2009; Dorling and Shaw 2002). Among the key criticisms has been that scholars assuming roles that are geared toward influencing policy, either as independent observers or paid consultants, risk becoming the handmaidens to power (Ward 2005, 316; Harvey 1974). The many types of researcher–subject interfaces that planning scholars enter into through their research provide an opportunity to overcome such criticisms.

By engaging with practice as consultants, community-based scholars, and public planning scholars and activists, planning academics have taken an action orientation that is not just in the service of the powerful but provides an interface to fulfill the broader definition of meaningful research impact. Working closely with governments, private firms, nongovernmental organizations, and community groups from an early stage in the research process encourages the identification of research questions that are most pressing to society. These embedded rather than dispassionate researcher–subject relationships encourage the production of knowledge in formats such as public reports, web sites, media stories, and films that are generally accessible. Networks outside of the academy are created to disseminate research results in ways that can leverage meaningful policy and social or political transformations. Finally, such emerging relationships support the development of scholarly publishing and theorization that is sensitive to the experiences of practice, which is particularly important in a field like planning that seeks to understand and train students to practice an applied profession (Healey 1991; Reardon 2005; Sandercock 2010b).

Conflict and Research Impact

Seeing research impact as an action-oriented endeavor within the public domain is fraught with risks for planning scholars. In particular, as planning scholars become more deeply embedded with the research subjects and involved in the public dissemination process, the potential for two types of high-profile conflicts arise (Hoch and Cibulskis 1987, 102). First are conflicts around end goals such as policies, resource allocation, or ideological issues, which are relatively straightforward to understand. “All action represents a departure from the routine; it initiates a course of change,” writes Friedmann (1987, 45). “This implies that actors must overcome resistance, the counteractions of those whose life situation they would rearrange.”

For academics not trained for the rough and tumble of discourse in the public sphere, such counteractions can be intense and intimidating. Flyvbjerg (2012), for instance, describes that as his scholarly research documenting the prevalence of cost overruns on mega projects gained widespread media attention in his home country Denmark, a government official threatened to cut off his research funding and others vehemently challenged the validity of his research findings in the press. Other scholars have faced more aggressive and personal intimidation, including highly personal criticisms on online blogs, and freedom of information act requests submitted to the scholar’s university seeking workplace performance evaluations and expense claims that may turn up embarrassing disclosures (Delacourt and Campion-Smith 2011). This level of conflict faced by scholars participating in public discourse is a far cry from the experience of most social scientists pursuing traditional scholarly research, where the key space for argument occurs within the generally collegial atmosphere of major academic conferences.

A second and perhaps more complex type of conflict that planning scholars must recognize and navigate are those related to institutional strategies, tactics, and allegiances. As academics enter into relationships where they are no longer arms length from their research subjects, the power dynamics and points of tension between the partners can become increasingly unclear.

In community-based types of relationships, even when the researchers have the best of intentions and are trained to be sensitive to inequalities, conflicts have tended to arise around unequal power dynamics between the partners, who has the authority to establish the strategic direction of the research, and who speaks and acts on behalf of marginalized groups (Reardon 2005; Reardon et al. 2009; Prins 2005). For the scholar-activist, conflicts may be less around representation, and more about the challenge of finding an independent voice to write about social movements and individual activists with whom the researcher is closely associated as friends and allies (Conway 2004).

Finally, the scholar as consultant role introduces a variety of areas for potential conflict. Planning scholars may be just as susceptible to conflicts around the undue influence by funding sources and restrictions on publishing study findings as researchers in medicine and the sciences (Neuman et al. 2011). More subtly, conflicts can arise if the consulting academic crosses unmarked tension points or institutional allegiances between the bureaucracy and the political sphere of government. Scholars may also not fully appreciate the contradictions of being both a consultant and an independent researcher, community-based scholar, or public planning scholar. In sum, in each scholarly arrangement, scholars are constantly grappling with an ongoing tension, whether they have “sacrific[ed] potential influence at the shrine of intellectual integrity?” (Healey 1991, 456)