Editorial

I had the privilege of joining a panel recently, alongside Robert Upton, (Associate Editor of Planning Theory and Practice) and Paul Watson (an independent planning/urban design consultant) at the University of Birmingham. The panel was constituted by Dr Matthew Cocks, the module convenor, to field questions on ‘Planning Theory and Practice’ from 80 odd Master’s Students studying planning at the university. From a bank of questions previously submitted by students, select questions were chosen by the module convenor to be aired during the 90 min session.

The usefulness of planning theory (if any apparently!) to the ‘real’ world of planning figured prominently in the questions. Michael Gunder (2015), in a previous Editorial, suggests that ‘planning theory’ is an ‘empty signifier’ because it carries contested meanings and connotations. It certainly is a contested signifier, but I doubt if it can be termed an empty one. The students, however, seemed to suspect that it is, with questions signaling a lack of conviction about the possible use that abstract theory could have for a discipline very linked to practice. This scepticism is not unique to the university or a particular cohort of students. Many of us would have encountered this in our classrooms too. That there is theory in every practice whether this was realised or not was voiced, but the wider question of what use to planning practice could this theory be, seemed to be elusive. The mystification, I thought, was not about what theory was or the specific ways in which a particular theory might influence practice, it was rather a simple but broad question of ‘Can we really apply planning theory to practice?’

Most readers of this journal would also know that the question is echoed in planning practice and also in academia. Peter Hall, in 1988, lamented that the “relationship between planning [practice] and the academy has gone sour and that is the major unresolved question that must now be addressed” (p. 341). Since then, many theorists such as John Forester, Judith Innes, to name but a few, took on the challenge to try and show how theory can guide practice and therefore be of direct relevance to practitioners by guiding them in what they do. The value of their contribution is to state the obvious to readers of Planning Theory, and I will not dwell on it. Instead, I would like to speculate on the idea of theory for its own sake and how this might still aid practice albeit indirectly.

My answer to the student’s questions revolved on the thesis that theories are ‘conceptual tools’. Planners need cognitive abilities in order to make sense of their context and the task on hand. Theories and concepts name abstract processes, which in turn enable the recognition of these, when encountered potentially leading to modifications to practices if needed. A good practitioner, I argued, would continually theorise from practice, and planning theory aids this process by providing a set of conceptual tools and schemas for continuous practical cognition and theorisation.

The cognitive relationship that theory can have to practice is also not new in planning thought. John Forester (1993), for instance, has talked about how powerful theories can re-direct attention to problems and issues that may be ignored. Similarly Bent Flyvberg (2001) has for long argued for the Aristotelian concept of ‘phronesis’ or practical wisdom. There are also a number of instances of theorisations from practice or in other words the use of practice to suggest theory or modifications to it. There is also of course, work done on metaphors in planning practice and their role in directing attention. However, to the best of my knowledge, very little empirical inquiry into the cognitive function of theory on practicing planners themselves has been reported. I may of course be mistaken here and will probably be corrected very soon on this. There could be more in any case and Planning Theory would be delighted to receive submissions reporting on empirical work done on this rather difficult subject if it exists!

Turning now to reporting on the last year, the 2015 impact factor for the journal was 1.409 compared to 1.186 for 2014. This is slightly higher than the impact factor over the last 3 years, but less than the high in 2011 at 2.091. In total, 64 articles were received in the year 2015, with the number of submissions continuing to rise. There were 64 manuscripts submitted from 29 counties, with the greatest number coming from the US at 11, followed by the UK at 8, with 5 from Netherlands, 4 each from Australia and China, 3 from Italy and 1 or 2 from the other 23 countries. The above numbers track the ‘corresponding authors’ only in co-authored submissions.

Finally, thanks are due to a number of colleagues on the Editorial Board and Michael Gunder, in particular, for the support provided in the first year of my Managing Editorship. Thanks also to Caroline Sparrow, who stepped down from Editorial responsibility at Sage following the part-time return of Jayne Whiffin. The journal additionally now enjoys the support of Kate Finn on the Sage Editorial team. My profound thanks also to the journal’s Editorial Administrator, Joseph Ayitio.

Last but not the least, Planning Theory is grateful to all its reviewers for helping to maintain the standards of the journal. For the period from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016, thanks are due to Henri Acselrad; Nurit Alfasi; Guy Baeten; Marcello Balbo; Janice Barry; Claudia Basta; Howell Baum; Jelle Behagel; Raoul Beunen; Geoffrey Binder; Andres Blanco; Luuk Boelens; Richard Bolan; Sophie Bond; Nikolaos Boukas; Edwin Buitelaar; David Byrne; Kang Cao, Jane Case Lilly; Rosemary-Claire Collard; Benjamin Davy; Gert de Roo; Ryan Devlin; Lucia Dobrucká; Jurian Edelenbos; Geraint Ellis; Stig Enemark; Fikri Zul Fahmi; Susan Fainstein; Tovi Fenster; Raphael Fischler; John Forester; Heléne Frichot; John Friedmann; Matthew Gandy; Tom Goodfellow; Kristina Grange; Enrico Gualini; Michael Gunder; Neil Harris; Philip Harrison; Jean Hillier; Charles Hoch; Randall Holcombe; Donna Houston; Margo Huxley; Andy Inch; Chris Ivory; Yosef Jabareen; Grigoris Kafkalas; Nikhil Kaza; Jeroen Klink; Maros Krivy; Lawrence Lai; Mickey Lauria; Lucie Laurian; Helena Leino; William Lester; Alex Lord; Claudio Magalhaes; Senjuti Manna; Raine Mäntysalo; Katie McClymont; Michael McGreevy; Rodrigo Meneses-Reyes; Jonathan Metzger; Daniel Monterescu; Sergio Montero Muñoz; Stefano Moroni; Saul Newman; Rizvi Noordeen; Mark Oranje; Karl Palmås; Nihal Perera; Francesco Piccolo; John Pløger; Gavin Rae; Ward Rauws; Nikolai Roskamm; Yvonne Rydin; Tore Sager; Willem Salet; Bish Sanyal; Federico Savini; Lisa Schweitzer; Eric Sheppard; Yongjun Shin; Aleksandar Slaev; Eva Sørensen; Malcolm Tait; Antti Talvitie; Huw Thomas; Rhodri Thomas; Justus Uitermark; Karen Umemoto; Kristof Van Assche; Joris Van Wezemael; Vanessa Watson; Stephen Wood.