What Is a Contribution in Planning Research?

In this editorial I explore making a research contribution in a professional field like planning, building on an earlier blog (Forsyth, 2019). I define research and how it differs from practice. I examine how to craft a contribution at the scale of the article. Finally, I reflect on three scales of academic contribution: the article, a set of related research outputs, and a career.

Defining Research

First, however, what is meant by research? There are many forms of planning research (Forsyth, 2012). However, within this variety are some common features. Research answers questions of interest to other researchers, builds on prior work, and fills a gap in knowledge or perhaps looks at an issue in a new way. Research uses methods that are clearly described, systematic, and capable of answering the question. Findings are well documented. Reporting on the research engages different ways of looking at the phenomena and acknowledges alternative interpretations. Research is made public after peer review, a process with dual functions of assessing quality and coaching authors to do their best (Forsyth, 2016; Forsyth & Crewe, 2006).

Many practitioners wonder how this is different from the various investigations they do in undertaking their work, for example compiling site histories, doing market analyses, developing precedent studies, and evaluating projects and programs. However, as I note in a blog, such “knowledge is new to them but not necessarily new to others, and the contribution is to solving a particular problem rather than adding to knowledge in general” (Forsyth, 2019, para. 5; see also Forsyth, 2016).

Contributions

Given this definition, how specifically does an author craft a contribution? Hopkins (2001) pointed to two main types of planning research contribution. Incremental or cumulative work adds to knowledge in small pieces, building on prior studies or looking at a topic from a slightly different angle. In contrast, synthetic work integrates prior research, often coming up with a new conceptualization. Both types of contribution need to be part of a conversation in the field (Hopkins, 2001). For a specialist journal such contributions can be narrowly focused on an audience of researchers with much knowledge shared in common. However, for a generalist journal such as JAPA, which speaks to a broader audience, an article needs to be crafted to reach those less familiar with specific debates (Forsyth, 2020).

Structurally, articles contributing to knowledge share several features (Forsyth, 2019). Such articles are well placed in the literature. They explain why their research question matters in planning research and practice. For example, they may be timely, use new or improved data and methods, or synthesize prior research in a way that will form a touchpoint. Research is of high quality empirically using difficult-to-obtain data sets, triangulating with multiple sources of evidence, and analyzing information in a sophisticated way. In addition to implications for future research, articles in JAPA also provide substantial lessons for practice that follow from the actual study and are not tacked on. Text, tables, and other illustrations need to convey the content clearly and without jargon.

As an editor some of the trickiest decisions I make involve work that is part of a series of articles by the same author or team. Authors may see such articles as making different arguments or speaking to substantially different audiences. A large research project may have several significant findings, each deserving of being reported in an article. An important body of work may consist of many small, subtly different increments. However, some authors perceive value in getting the maximum number of articles out of a single study. This is known as searching for the least publishable unit, or as slicing the salami too thin. This leads to articles that focus on a narrow topic and leave many dimensions of the topic unaddressed. These could be easily answered with a bit more data or analysis, something authors are disinclined to do as they are trying to spread data around in the maximum number of articles.

A second issue that is becoming more common in the period of big data involves authors locating a data set and then looking for a question. This is not always a problem: many fine studies use existing data, from the census and administrative records to specialized surveys made useable beyond the initial research team. But it can also happen that the questions that can be answered with such data sets may not be those that further research conversations. On balance, for a journal of record like JAPA, it is important to make a substantial contribution to an important conversation.

Scales: Article, Body of Work, and Career

As a journal editor I am in the business of publishing articles; however, I think contributions are most meaningful in terms of a body of work and a career. By a body of work I mean a set of scholarly outputs such as articles and books that contribute new ideas of some sort. This may come from one large research project but may also be built up over time from multiple smaller projects. A body of work is likely to be published in many venues and not obvious in a single article.

In addition to scholarly outputs, a career also embodies other activities such as teaching, developing academic programs, practice, and building the profession more generally. For a few years under the prior editor, Sandra Rosenbloom, JAPA published “Perspectives” articles where senior planning academics reflected on their lives, which often involved substantial periods of practice. Striking were the multiple ways in which these academics assembled contributions over time. Markusen (2015) explained how important it had been to her to combine practice, activism, and research. Wachs (2016) talked about the indirect influence he had had via teaching. Such an influence may happen over time, as Drake Reitan and Banerjee (2018) described for the work of Kevin Lynch in Los Angeles. Such contributions are far beyond a single article and very difficult to quantify.

Making a contribution to planning scholarship operates at a variety of scales and timeframes including the scale of the article. My hope is that JAPA is a good home for important scholarly conversations of broad interest to researchers and practitioners.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ann Forsyth

Ann Forsyth is the Ruth and Frank Stanton Professor of Urban Planning at Harvard University.