Epistemology of Space: Exploring Relational Perspectives in Planning, Urbanism, and Architecture

References

• Albrechts, L., P. Healey, and K. Kunzmann. 2003. “Strategic Spatial Planning and Regional Governance in Europe.” Journal of the American Planning Association 69 (2): 113–129. doi: 10.1080/01944360308976301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen, S. 1999. Points + Lines: Diagrams and Projects for the City. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
   Google Scholar
• Amin, A. 2004. “Regions Unbound: Towards a New Politics of Place.” Geographiska Annaler B 86 (1): 33–44. doi: 10.1111/j.0435-3684.2004.00152.x
   Google Scholar
• Austin, Wendy, Caroline Park, and Erika Goble. 2008. “From Interdisciplinary to Transdisciplinary Research: A Case Study.” Qualitative Health Research 18 (4): 557–564. doi: 10.1177/1049732307308514
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baert, P. 2005. Philosophy of the Social Sciences: Towards Pragmatism. Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Banerjee, T. 2001. “The Future of Public Space.” Journal of the American Planning Association 67 (1): 9–24. doi: 10.1080/01944360108976352
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger, Peter, and Thomas Luckmann. 1991. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Bernstein, R. 2010. The Pragmatic Turn. Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Bertilsson, T. M. 2004. “The Elementary Forms of Pragmatism: On different Types of Abduction.” European Journal of Social Theory 7 (3): 371–389. doi: 10.1177/1368431004044199
   Google Scholar
• Bertolini, L. 2010. “Coping with the Irreducible Uncertainties of Planning: An Evolutionary Approach.” In The Ashgate Research Companion to Planning Theory: Conceptual Challenges for Spatial Planning, edited by J. Hillier, and P. Healey, 413–424. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Blaut, J. 1961. “Space and Process.” The Professional Geographer 13 (4): 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• BonJour, L., and Ernest Sosa. 2003. Epistemic Justification: Internalism vs Externalism, Foundations vs Virtues. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. 2000. Pascalian Meditations. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brenda, L., ed. 2003. Design Research: Methods and Perspectives. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bridge, G. 2005. Reason in the City of Difference: Pragmatism, Communicative Action and Contemporary Urbanism. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bridge, G. 2013. “A Transactional Perspective on Space.” International Planning Studies 18 (4). doi:10.1080/13563475.2013.833728
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Buchanan, R. 1992. “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking.” In Design Studies: A Reader, edited by H. Clark and D. Brody, 96–102. Oxford: Berg.
   Google Scholar
• Castells, M. 2000. “Materials for an Exploratory Theory of the Network Society.” British Journal of Sociology 51 (1): 5–24. doi: 10.1080/000713100358408
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colquhoun, Alan. 1989. Modernity and the Classical Tradition: Architectural Essays 1980–1987. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper, D., ed. 1999. Epistemology: The Classic Readings. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Cozens, P. M. 2008. “New Urbanism, Crime and the Suburbs: A Review of the Evidence.” Urban Policy and Research 26 (4): 429–444. doi: 10.1080/08111140802084759
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crawford, M. 1995. “Contesting the Public Realm: Struggles over Public Space in Los Angeles.” Journal of Architectural Education 49 (1): 4–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cross, N. 1982. “Designerly Ways of Knowing.” Design Studies 3 (4): 221–227. doi: 10.1016/0142-694X(82)90040-0
   Google Scholar
• Cross, N. 2007. “From a Design Science to a Design Discipline: Understanding Designerly Ways of Knowing and Thinking.” In Design Research Now. Essays and Selected Projects, edited by R. Michel, 235–254. Basel: Birkhäuser.
   Google Scholar
• Crysler, G., S. Cairns, and H. Heynen, eds. 2012. Handbook Architectural Theory. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Davoudi, S. and I. Strange, eds. 2008. Conceptions of Space and Place in Strategic Spatial Planning. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• De Jong, M., and J. M. Van Der Voordt, eds. 2002. Ways to Study and Research Urban, Architectural and Technical Design. Delft: Delft University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Deleuze, G., and F. Guattari. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. 1958 [1929]. Experience and Nature. New York: Dover.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J., and A. Bentley. 1991 [1949]. “Knowing and the Known.” In Later Works 1925–1953, Volume 16, edited by J.A. Boydson, 2–294. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
   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
• Dovey, K. 1999. Framing Places. Mediating Power in Built Form. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Eagleton, T. 1983. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, K. 2008. “Research into, by and for Design.” Journal of Visual Art Practice 7 (2): 153–160. doi: 10.1386/jvap.7.2.153_1
   Google Scholar
• Friedmann, J. 1987. Planning in the Public Domain. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Friedmann, J. 2003. “Toward a Non-Euclidean Mode of Planning.” In Readings in Planning Theory, edited by S. Campbell, and S. Fainstein, 75–80. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. 1999. The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. London: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gell, A. 1984. Art and Agency. Oxford: Oxford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glaeser, E. 2011. Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier. New York: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S. and P. Healey. 1999. “Relational Concepts of Space and Place: Issues for Planning Theory and Practice.” European Planning Studies 7 (5): 623–646. doi: 10.1080/09654319908720542
   Google Scholar
• Gregory, D., J. Johnston, G. Pratt, M. Watts, and S. Whatmore. 2009. The Dictionary of Human Geography. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Gregory, D., and J. Urry, eds. 1985. Social Relations and Spatial Structures. Houndmills: Macmillan Education Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. 2006. “Relational Complexity and the Imaginative Power of Strategic Spatial Planning.” European Planning Studies 14 (4): 525–546. doi: 10.1080/09654310500421196
   Web of Science ®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: Acco.
   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
• Heynen, H. 2004. “De ontdekking van de ruimte.” In Dat is architectuur: Sleutelteksten uit de twintigste eeuw, edited by H. Heynen, A. Loeckx, L. De Cauter, and K. Van Herck, 782–789. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010.
   Google Scholar
• Heynen, H. 2013. “Space as Receptor, Instrument or Stage: Notes on the Interaction between Spatial and Social Constellations.” International Planning Studies 18 (4). doi:10.1080/13563475.2013.833729
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hillier, J. 2011. “Strategic Navigation Across Multiple Planes: Towards a Deleuzean-Inspired Methodology for Strategic Spatial Planning.” Town Planning Review 82 (5): 503–527. doi: 10.3828/tpr.2011.30
   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
• Hollis, M. 2002. The Philosophy of Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   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
• Hughes, R. 2009. “The Art of Displacement: Designing Experiential Systems and Transverse Epistemologies as Conceptual Criticism.” Footprint 4 (4): 49–64.
   Google Scholar
• Jessop, B. 2001. “Institutional (Re)turns and the Strategic-Relational Approach.” Environment and Planning A 33 (7): 1213–1235. doi: 10.1068/a32183
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jessop, B., N. Brenner, and M. Jones. 2008. “Theorizing Socio-Spatial Relations.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 26 (3): 13. doi: 10.1068/d9107
   Web of Science ®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
• Khan, A. Z. 2010. “Rethinking Doxiadis' Ekistical Urbanism: Sustainability and Globalization as a Dialectical Framework for Design.” Positions 2010 (1): 6–39.
   Google Scholar
• Khan, A. Z. 2011. “When History Becomes the Corpus for Designerly Way of Thinking.” In Historiography of Architecture, edited by P. Vandal, et al., 23–29. Lahore: THAAP.
   Google Scholar
• Khan, A. Z. 2013. “On Design and Politics of Co-Producing Public Space.” International Journal of Islamic Architecture 2 (1): 125–156. doi: 10.1386/ijia.2.1.125_1
   Google Scholar
• Khan, A. Z., K. Allacker, and H. Vandevyvere. 2013. “Design for the Ecological Age: Rethinking the Role of Sustainability in Architectural Education.” Journal of Architectural Education 67 (2): 7–17. doi: 10.1080/10464883.2013.817155
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, J., T. Mitcham, and C. Frodeman. 2010. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. and A. Yaneva. 2008. “An ANT's View of Architecture.” In Explorations in Architecture. Teaching Design Research, edited by R. Geiser, 80–89. Basel: Birkhäuser.
   Google Scholar
• Lawrence, D. L., and S. M. Low. 1990. “The Built Environment and Spatial Form.” Annual Review of Anthropology 19 (1): 453–505. doi: 10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.002321
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Corbusier. 1986. Towards a New Architecture. New York: Dover Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Lefebvre, H. 1974. La production de l'espace (Paris: Anthropos). (1991) The production of space (Oxford: Blackwell).
   Google Scholar
• Lehtovuori, P. 2012. “Towards Experiential Urbanism.” Critical Sociology 38 (1): 71–87. doi: 10.1177/0896920511407222
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Low, Setha M. 2000. On the Plaza: The Politics of Public Space and Culture. Austin: University of Texas Press.
   Google Scholar
• Low, Setha, and Denise Lawrence-Zúñiga. 2003. The Anthropology of Space and Place. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• MacCann, E., and K. Ward. 2010. “Relationality/Territoriality: Toward a Conceptualization of Cities in the World.” Geoforum 41 (2): 175–184. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.06.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madanipour, A. 2013. “Researching Space, Transgressing Epistemic Boundaries.” International Planning Studies 18 (4). doi:10.1080/13563475.2013.833730
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Madanipour, A. 2006. “Roles and Challenges of Urban Design.” Journal of Urban Design 11 (2): 173–193. doi: 10.1080/13574800600644035
   Google Scholar
• Madanipour, A., eds. 2010. Whose Public Space? London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Madanipour, A., A. Hull, and P. Healey, eds. 2001. The Governance of Place: Space and Planning Processes. Aldershot: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Markus, T. A. 1993. Buildings & Power. Freedom and Control in the Origin of Modern Building Types. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Martinelli, F., F. Moulaert, and A. Novy, eds. 2012. Urban and Regional Development Trajectories in Contemporary Capitalism. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Massey, D. 2005. For Space. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Mayhew, S., and A. Penny. 1992. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Geography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mostafavi, M., and G. Doherty, eds. 2010. Ecological Urbanism. Baden: Lars Müller Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Moulaert, F., and B. Jessop. 2012. “Theoretical Foundations for the Analysis of Socio-Economic Development in Space.” In Urban and Regional Development Trajectories in Contemporary Capitalism, Chapter 2, edited by F. Martinelli, F. Moulaert, and A. Novy, 18–44. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Moulaert, F., D. MacCallum, A. Mehmood, and A. Hamdouch, eds. 2013. International Handbook on Social Innovation. Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Moulaert, F., and A. Mehmood. 2009. “Analysing Regional Development and Policy: A Structural-Realist Approach.” Regional Studies 44 (1): 103–118. doi: 10.1080/00343400802251478
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moulaert, F., and J. Nussbaumer. 2005. La logique sociale du développement territorial. Québec: Presses de l'Université du Québec.
   Google Scholar
• Moulaert, F., and J. Nussbaumer. 2008. “Defining the Social Economy and its Governance at the Neighbourhood Level: A Methodological Reflection.” Urban Studies 42 (11): 2071–2088. doi: 10.1080/420980500279752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moulaert, F., and F. Sekia. 2003. “Territorial Innovation Models: A Critical Survey.” Regional Studies 37 (3): 289–302. doi: 10.1080/0034340032000065442
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moulaert, F., E. Swyngedouw, and P. Wilson. 1988. “Spatial Responses to Fordist and Post-Fordist Accumulation and Regulation.” Papers of the Regional Science Association 64 (1): 11–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1435-5597.1988.tb01111.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Sullivan, Arthur. 2012. Urban Economics. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Pike, A. J., A. Rodriguez-Pose, and J. Tomaney, eds. 2011. Handbook of Local and Regional Development. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rapoport, A. 1982. The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communication Approach. Beverly Hills (Call.): Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Rittel, H. W. J. 1973. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy Sciences 4 (2): 155–169. doi: 10.1007/BF01405730
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rorty, R. 1982. Consequences of Pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Scheer, B. 2011. “Metropolitan Form and Landscape Urbanism.” In Companion to Urban Design, edited by T. Banerjee, and A. Loukaitou-Sideris, 611–618. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schreurs, J. 2007. “Communicating Quality: Words and Images.” Architectural Research Quarterly 11 (3–4): 325–333. doi: 10.1017/S1359135500000828
   Google Scholar
• Schreurs, J., and M. Martens. 2005. “Research by Design as Quality Enhancement.” AESOP-congress The Dream of a Greater Europe, Vienna, 13–17. Accessed July 5, 2010. http://aesop2005.scix.net/data/papers/att/416.fullTextPrint.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. 1988. “Designing: Rules, Types and Worlds.” In Design Studies: A Reader, edited by H. Clark, and D. Brody, 110–114. Oxford: Berg.
   Google Scholar
• Schumpeter, Joseph. 2003. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: Taylor and Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Segers, R., P. Van den Broeck, A. Z. Khan, F. Moulaert, J. Schreurs, B. De Meulder, G. Vigar, and A. Madanipour, eds. 2013. The Spindus Manual: Consulting the Genius of Places. Brussels: ACSP.
   Google Scholar
• Sert, Jose Luis. 1944. Can Our Cities Survive? An ABC of Urban Problems, their Analysis, their Solution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Servillo, L., and J. Schreurs. 2013. “Pragmatism and Research by Design: Epistemological Virtues and Methodological Challenges.” International Planning Studies 18 (4). doi:10.1080/13563475.2013.837136
   Google Scholar
• Sheppard, E. 2002. “The Spaces and Times of Globalisation: Place, Scale, Networks, and Positionality.” Economic Geography 78 (3): 207–330. doi: 10.2307/4140812
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, N. 1984. Uneven Development. Nature, Capital and the Production of Space. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publisher.
   Google Scholar
• Soja, E. W. 1980. “The Socio-Spatial Dialectic.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 70 (2): 207–225. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8306.1980.tb01308.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soja, Edward. 1989. Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• de Solà-Morales, M. 1992. “Public Spaces/Collective Spaces.” In A Matter of Things, edited by M. de Solà-Morales, 184–190. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Sternberg, E. 2000. “An Integrative Theory of Urban Design.” Journal of the American Planning Association 66 (3): 265–278. doi: 10.1080/01944360008976106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stokols, D., K. L., Hall, B. K. Taylor, and R. P. Moser. 2008. “The Science of Team Science: Overview of the Field and Introduction to the Supplement.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35 (2S): S77–S89. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan, S. 2001. Living Across and Through Skins. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Swyngedouw, E. 1997. “Excluding the Other: The Production of Scale and Scaled Politics.” In Geographies of Economies, edited by R. Lee, and J. Wills, 167–176. London: Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Thrift, N. 2003. “Space: The Fundamental Stuff of Human Geography.” In Key Concepts in Geography, edited by S. Holloway, S. Rice, and G. Vallentine, 95–107. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Tuana, Nancy. 2013. “Embedding Philosophers in the Practices of Science: Bringing Humanities to the Sciences.” Synthese, 190 (11): 1955–1973.
   Google Scholar
• Unger, R. 2007. The Self Awakened: Pragmatism Unbound. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van den Broeck, P. 2011. “Analysing Social Innovation through Planning Instruments. A Strategic-Relational Approach.” In Strategic Projects, Catalysts for Change, edited by S. Oosterlynck, J. Van den Broeck, L. Albrechts, F. Moulaert, and A. Verhetsel, 52–78. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Van den Broeck, P., M. Abdelwahab, K. Miciukiewicz, and J. Hillier. 2013. “On Analysing Space from a Strategic-Relational Institutionalist Perspective: The Cultural Park for Children in Cairo.” International Planning Studies 18 (4). doi:10.1080/13563475.2013.833727
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Verma, N. 2011. “Urban Design: An Incompletely Theorized Project.” In Companion to Urban Design, edited by T. Banerjee, and A. Loukaitou-Sideris, 57–69. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, Caroline, J. D. Roessner, K. Bobb, J. Thompson Klein, K. W. Boyack, J. Keyton, I. Rafols, and K. Börner. 2011. “Approaches to Understanding and Measuring Interdisciplinary Scientific Research (IDR): A Review of the Literature.” Journal of Informetrics 165 (2011): 14–26. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldheim, C., eds. 2006. The Landscape Urbanism Reader. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yaneva, A. 2012. Mapping Controversies in Architecture. Farnham: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar