A Transactional Perspective on Space

References

• Addams, J. 1968. Twenty Years at Hull House. New York, NY: Macmillan (originally published 1910).
   Google Scholar
• Baert, P. 2005. Philosophy of the Social Sciences: Towards Pragmatism. Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Barnett, C. 2008. “Convening Publics. The Parasitical Spaces of Public Action.” In The Sage Handbook of Political Geography, edited by K. Cox, M. Low, and J. Robinson, 403–417. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Barnett, C. 2012. “Geography and Ethics: Placing Life in the Space of Reasons.” Progress in Human Geography 36 (3): 379–388. doi: 10.1177/0309132510397463
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnett, C., and G. Bridge. 2013. “Geographies of Radical Democracy: Agonistic Pragmatism and the Formation of Affected Interests.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103 (4): 1022–1040.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernstein, R. 1983. Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics and Praxis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bernstein, R. 2010. The Pragmatic Turn. Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Bohman, J. 2002. “How to Make Social Science Practical: Pragmatism, Critical Social Science and Multiperspectival Theory.” Millenium: Journal of International Studies 31 (3): 499–524. doi: 10.1177/03058298020310030701
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bohman, J. 2010. Democracy Across Borders: From Demos to Demoi. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boltanski, L., and L. Thévenot. 2006. On Justification. Economies of Worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Brandom, R. 1998. Making it Explicit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bridge, G. 2000. “Rationality, Ethics and Space: On Situated Universalism and the Self-interested Acknowledgement of Difference.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 18 (3): 519–535. doi: 10.1068/d204t
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bridge, G. 2005. Reason in the City of Difference: Pragmatism, Communicative Action and Contemporary Urbanism. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bridge, G. 2008. “City Senses. On the Radical Possibilities of Pragmatism for Geography.” Geoforum 39 (4): 1570–1584. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.02.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cochran, M. 2002. “A Democratic Critique of Cosmopolitan Democracy: Pragmatism from the Bottom-Up.” European Journal of International Relations 8 (4): 517–548. doi: 10.1177/1354066102008004004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutchin, M. P. 2008. “John Dewey's Metaphysical Ground Map and Its Implications for Geographical Enquiry.” Geoforum 39 (4): 1555–1569. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.01.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. 1922. Human Nature and Conduct. New York, NY: Henry Holt & Co.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. 1927. The Public and Its Problems. New York, NY: Henry Holt & Co.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. 1958 [1929]. Experience and Nature. New York, NY: Dover.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. 1977 [1908]. “Does Reality Possess Practical Character?” In The Middle Works 1899–1924, Vol. 4 (1907–1909), edited by J. A Boydson, 125–142. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. 2005 [1934]. Art as Experience. New York, NY: Perigree Books.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J., and A. Bentley. 1991 [1949]. “Knowing and the Known.” In Later Works 1925–1953, Vol. 16, edited by J. A. Boydson, 1–280. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dewsbury, J.-D. 2003. “Witnessing Space: Knowledge Without Contemplation.” Environment and Planning A 35 (11): 1907–1932. doi: 10.1068/a3582
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donaghy, K. P., and L. D. Hopkins. 2006. “Coherentist Theories of Planning Are Possible and Useful.” Planning Theory 5 (2): 173–202. doi: 10.1177/1473095206064974
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. 1990. Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy and Political Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fainstein, S. 2010. The Just City. London: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvberg, B. 1998. Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. 1989. Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. 1999. The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. London: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Friedmann, J. 1973. Re-tracking America: A Theory of Transactive Planning. New York, NY: Anchor.
   Google Scholar
• Friedmann, J. 1987. Planning in the Public Domain. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fung, A. 2004. Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fung, A. 2006. “Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance.” Public Administration Review 66 (supp. 1): 66–75. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fung, A. 2007. “Democratic Theory and Political Science. A Pragmatic Method of Constructive Engagement.” American Political Science Review 101 (3): 443–458. doi: 10.1017/S000305540707030X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gieryn, T. 2006. “City as Truth-Spot: Laboratories and Field Sites in Urban Studies.” Social Studies of Science 36 (1): 5–38. doi: 10.1177/0306312705054526
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein, M., and G. Gigerenzer. 2002. “Models of Ecological Rationality: The Recognition Heuristic.” Psychological Review 1009 (1): 75–90. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.75
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gross, M. 2009. “Collaborative Experiments: Jane Addams, Hull House and Experimental Social Work.” Social Science Information 48 (1): 81–95. doi: 10.1177/0539018408099638
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, P. 1997. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. London: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. 2007. Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a Relational Planning for Our Times. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. 2008. “Making Choices that Matter: The Practical Art of Situated Strategic Judgements in Spatial Strategy-making.” In Empowering the Planning Fields: Ethics, Creativity and Action, edited by J. Van den Broeck, F. Moulaert, and S. Oosterlynck, 23–41. Leuven: Accro.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. 2009. “The Pragmatic Tradition in Planning thought.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 28 (3): 277–292. doi: 10.1177/0739456X08325175
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, P. 2010. Making Better Places: The Planning Project in the Twenty First Century. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hoch, C. 1984a. “Doing Good and being Right: The Pragmatic Connection in Planning Theory.” Journal of the American Planning Association 50 (3): 335–345. doi: 10.1080/01944368408976600
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoch, C. 1984b. “Pragmatism, Power and Planning.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 4 (2): 86–95. doi: 10.1177/0739456X8400400203
   Google Scholar
• Hoch, C. 2007. “Pragmatic Communicative Action Theory.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 26 (3): 272–283. doi: 10.1177/0739456X06295029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoch, C. 2009. “Planning craft. How do Planners Compose Plans?” Planning Theory 9 (2): 219–241. doi: 10.1177/1473095209105528
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopkins, L. 2012. “Plan Assessment: Making and using Plans Well.” In The Oxford Handbook of Urban Planning, edited by R. Weber and R. Crane, 803–822. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, S. 2001. Lines of Activity: Performance, Historiography and Hull-House Domesticity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, M. 2009. “Phase Space: Geography, Relational Thinking and Beyond.” Progress in Human Geography 33 (4): 487–506. doi: 10.1177/0309132508101599
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight, J., and J. Johnson. 2011. The Priority of Democracy. The political consequences of pragmatism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Langsdorf, L. 1997. “Argument as Enquiry in a Postmodern Context.” Argumentation 11 (3): 315–327. doi: 10.1023/A:1007720405746
   Google Scholar
• Langsdorf, L. 2002. “Reconstructing the Fourth Dimension: A Deweyan Critique of Habermas's Conception of Communicative Action.” In Habermas and Pragmatism, edited by M. Aboulafia, M. Bookman, and C. Kemp, 141–164. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 2004. The Politics of Nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lefebvre, H. 1996. Writings on Cities. Translated by E. Kofman and E. Lebas. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Lussault, M., and M. Stock. 2010. “‘Doing with Space’. Towards a Pragmatics of Space.” Social Geography 5 (1): 11–19. doi: 10.5194/sg-5-11-2010
   Google Scholar
• Madanipur, A. 2007. Designing the City of Reason: Foundations and Frameworks. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Marres, N. 2007. “The Issues Deserve More Credit: Pragmatist Contributions to the Study of Public Involvement in Controversy.” Social Studies of Science 37 (5): 759–780. doi: 10.1177/0306312706077367
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, J. 2003. The Education of John Dewey. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, J. L. 2011. The Explanation of Social Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Massey, D. 2005. For Space. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, D. 1897. “A Day at Hull House.” American Journal of Sociology 2 (5): 629–642. doi: 10.1086/210655
   Google Scholar
• Moulaert, F. 2009. “Social Innovation: Institutionally Embedded, Territorially (re) Produced.” In Social Innovation and Territorial Development, edited by D. MacCallum, F. Moulaert, J. Hillier, and S. Haddock, 11–24 Farnham: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Purcell, M. 2008. Recapturing Democracy: Neoliberalization and the struggle for alternative urban futures. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rorty, R. 1980. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Rorty, R. 1982. Consequences of Pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Russill, C. 2008. “Through a Public Darkly: Reconstructing Pragmatist Perspectives in Communication Theory.” Communication Theory 18: 478–504. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00331.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sellers, W. 1997. Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sellers, W. 2007. In the Space of Reasons. Selected Essays of Wilfrid Sellers, edited by K. Scharp and R. Brandom, vii–xxvii. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sennett, R. 2009. “The Public Realm.” In The Blackwell City Reader, 2nd ed., edited by G. Bridge and S. Watson, 261–273. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Soja, E. 2010. Seeking Spatial Justice. London: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sullivan, S. 2001. Living Across and Through Skins. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Talen, E. 2005. New Urbanism and American Planning: The Conflict of Cultures. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Talen, E. 2012. City Rules: How Regulations Affect Urban Form. London: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thrift, N. 2007. Non-representational Theory: Space, Politics, Affect. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Tucker, D. 2007. Mind from Body: Experience from Neural Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Unger, R. 2007. The Self Awakened: Pragmatism Unbound. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Willard, C. 1989. A Theory of Argumentation. London: University of Alabama Press.
   Google Scholar