Planning practice and academic knowledge: different perspectives of urban planners in Turkey

References

• Albarello, L. 2007. Apprendre À Chercher, L’acteur Social et La Recherche Scientifique. Paris: De Boeck & Larcier.
   Google Scholar
• Altshuler, A. 1976. “The Goals of Comprehensive Planning.” Royal Australian Planning Institute Journal 14 (1–2): 20–20. doi:10.1080/00049999.1976.9656483.
   Google Scholar
• Arar, A. 2022. Yerel Gündem 21.
   Google Scholar
• Bounds, M., and P. Phibbs. 2010. “Putting Practice into Theory: Reconciling Academic Discourse with Experience.” Ruand Space 4 (1): 25–49.
   Google Scholar
• Burat, S. 2011. “Yeşilyollarda Hareketle İstirahat”: Jansen Planlarında Başkentin Kentsel Yeşil Alan Tasarımları ve Bunların Uygulanma ve Değiştirilme Süreci (1932–1960).” İdealkent 2011 (4): 100–127.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, H., and R. Marshall. 1998. “Acting on Principle: Dilemmas in Planning Practice.” Planning Practice and Research 13 (2): 117–128. doi:10.1080/02697459816139.
   Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities (1997). The EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies. Luxembourg: European Commision.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Diller, C., A. Hoffmann, and S. Oberding. 2018. “Rational Versus Communicative : Towards an Understanding of Spatial Planning Methods in German Planning Practice Rational Versus Communicative : Towards an Understanding of Spatial Planning Methods in German Planning Practice.” Planning Practice & Research 7459: 1–20. Routledge. doi:10.1080/02697459.2018.1430410.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durning, B. 2004. “Planning Academics and Planning Practitioners: Two Tribes or a Community of Practice?” Planning Practice and Research 19 (4): 435–446. doi:10.1080/0269745052000343262.
   Google Scholar
• Duyguluer, F. 2006. “İmar Mevzuatının Kayıpları.” Planlama Dergisi 4: 27–37.
   Google Scholar
• El-Kholei, A. O. 2020. “Failed Planning: Lost Opportunities and Choices for the Future.” Open House International 45 (4): 387–406. doi:10.1108/OHI-07-2020-0075.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Firidin, E. 2004. “Değişen Paradigmalar Ekseninde Kent Planlamaya Yeni Yaklaşımlar.” Planlama Dergisi 2: 44–50.
   Google Scholar
• Fraenkel, R. J., and Wallen, E. N. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in education (4th ed.). San Francisco: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Forsyth, Ann. 2016. “Investigating Research.” Planning Theory & Practice 467–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forsyth, A. 2019. Linking Research and Practice in Planning. 85(2): 81–83. doi:10.1177/0739456X12442217.
   Google Scholar
• Gezim, G., and P. Kiper. 2016. “Türkiye’nin Seksen Yıllık Kent Planlama Serüveninde Son Otuz Yılın Değerlendirilmesi İller Bankası Deneyimleri.” In Seksen Sonrası Mekan ve Planlama, 3–20, Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi Mimarlık Mühendislik Fakültesi, Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Bölümü. http://webftp.gazi.edu.tr/mimarlik/80snorasimekânveplanlama_ekitap.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Goodman, R., R. Freestone, and P. Burton. 2017, October. “Planning Practice and Academic Research: Views from the Parallel Worlds.” Planning Practice and Research 7459: 1–12. Routledge. doi:10.1080/02697459.2017.1378970.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. 1992. “Planning Through Debate: The Communicative Turn in Planning Theory.” Town Planning Review 63 (2): 143–162. doi:10.3828/tpr.63.2.422×602303814821.
   Google Scholar
• Hellmich, M., and L. Lange. 2016. “Bridging Research and Practice Through Collaboration: Lessons from a Joint Working Group.” Planning Theory & Practice 17 (3): 447–473.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurley, J., C. W. Lamker, E. J. Taylor, D. Stead, M. Hellmich, L. Lange, H. Rowe, S. Beeck, P. Phibbs, A. Forsyth. 2016. “Exchange Between Researchers and Practitioners in Urban Planning: Achievable Objective or a Bridge Too far?/The use of Academic Research in Planning Practice: Who, What, Where, When and How? /Bridging Research and Practice Through Collaboration: Lessons fr.” Planning Theory and Practice 17 (3): 447–473. Routledge. doi:10.1080/14649357.2016.1190491
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurley, J., and E. J. Taylor. 2016. “Not a Lot of People Read the Stuff “: Australian Urban Research in Planning Practice “ Not a Lot of People Read the Stuff “: Australian Urban Research in Planning Practice.” Urban Policy and Research 34 (2): 116–130. Routledge. doi:10.1080/08111146.2014.994741.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kryzek, K., A. Forysth, and C. S. Slotterback. 2009. “Is There a Role for Evidence-Based Practice in Urban Planning and Policy?” 10 (4): 459–478. doi:10.1080/14649350903417241
   Google Scholar
• Kunzmann, K. R., and M. Koll-Schretzenmayr. 2015. “A Planning Journey Across Europe in the Year 2015.” Disp 51 (1): 86–90. doi:10.1080/02513625.2015.1038081.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lincoln, S. Y., and E. G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage Pub.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, J. 2014. “Revisiting the ‘two Communities’ Metaphor of Research Utilisation.” International Journal of Public Sector Management 27 (7): 614–627.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, Joshua, Adrian Cherney, and Brian W. Head. 2016. “Do Policy Makers Use Academic Research? Reexamining the ‘Two Communities’ Theory of Research Utilization.” Public Administration Review 76 (1): 24–32. doi:10.1111/puar.12464.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Öktem, B., and G. Aksümer. 2021. “Geography Of Private Planning Offices In Turkey: Spatial And Sectoral Analysis.” Journal of Planning. doi:10.14744/planlama.2021.18942.
   Google Scholar
• Öktem Ünsal, B. 2022. “The Regressive Planning Practice of Private Sector Planners Under the Pressure of Political and Market Forces in Turkey.” European Planning Studies. Routledge, 1–19. doi:10.1080/09654313.2022.2049217.
   Google Scholar
• Penpecioğlu M and Taşan-Kok T (2016) Alienated and Politicized? Young Planners’ Confrontation with Entrepreneurial and Authoritarian State Intervention in Urban Development in Turkey. European Planning Studies 24(6): 1037–1055. Taylor & Francis
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinson, D. 2004. “Urban Planning : An ‘ Undisciplined ‘ Discipline.” Futures 36 (4): 503–513.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tekeli, İ. 1987. “ODTÜ’de Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Eğitimi.” In Türkiye’de Kent Bilimi, 65–90, Ankara: Ankara University Political Sciences Faculty Pub.
   Google Scholar
• Tekeli, İ. 2003. “The Contribution of German Exiles to the Urban Planning Thought and Practice in Turkey.” In Exodusder Wissenschaften Und Der Literature Dokumentation Einer Ringvorlesungdes Evenari-Forums Wintersemester, 311–339. Darmstadt: Techniche Universidad Darmstadt.
   Google Scholar
• Tekeli, İ. 2011. Türkiye’nin Kent Planlama ve Kent Araştırmaları Tarihi Yazıları. Tarih Vakf.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, W., and M. Brooks. 2012. “The Engagement of Planning Scholarship with Practice: Brief Introduction to Symposium.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 32 (2): 133–134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoloğlu, A. C. 2019. “Planlama Piyasasının İki Yeni Dinamiği: Parçalama ve Tekelleşme.” İdealkent 13: 128–151.
   Google Scholar
• As Zanotto, J. M. 2019. “Detachment in Planning Practice.” Planning Theory and Practice 20 (1): 37–52. Routledge. doi:10.1080/14649357.2018.1560491.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar