Learning in Participatory Planning Processes: Taking Advantage of Concepts and Theories Across Disciplines

References

• Abrego, L. J. (2011). Legal consciousness of undocumented Latinos: Fear and stigma as barriers to claims‐making for first‐and 1.5‐generation immigrants. Law and Society Review, 45(2), 337–370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barab, S., Dodge, T., Thomas, M. K., Jackson, C., & Tuzun, H. (2007). Our designs and the social agendas they carry. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(2), 263–305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertolini, L. (2011). Or is it learning? Planning Theory & Practice, 12(2), 175–177.
   Google Scholar
• Bletsas, A., & Beasley, C. (2015). Engaging with carol bacchi. Strategic interventions and exchanges (p. 168). Adelaide: University of Adelaide Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brody, S. D., Godschalk, D. R., & Burby, R. J. (2003). Mandating citizen participation in plan making: Six strategic planning choices. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(3), 245–264.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corburn, J. (2003). Bringing local knowledge into environmental decision making: Improving urban planning for communities at risk. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(4), 420–433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniels, H. (2010). Implicit or invincible mediation in the development of interagency work. In H. Daniels, A. Edwards, Y. Engeström, T. Gallagher, & S. Ludvigsen (Eds.), Activity theory in practice: Promoting learning across boundaries and agencies (pp. 105–125). Oxford: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Engerström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engerström, R. Miettinen, & R. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (2009). Learning from the process versus outcomes debates. Planning Theory & Practice, 10(4), 429–433.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (2015). What kind of research might help us become better planners? Planning Theory & Practice, 16(2), 145–148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forester, J., Balducci, A., Madanipour, A., Kunzmann, K. R., Banerjee, T., & Richardson, R. (2013). Design confronts politics, and both thrive!: Creativity in the face of urban design conflict. Planning Theory & Practice, 14(2), 251–276.
   Google Scholar
• Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed (Myra Bergman Ramos, Trans.). New York, NY: Herder. Original work published 1968.
   Google Scholar
• Friedmann, J. (2008). The uses of planning theory: A bibliographic essay. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28(2), 247–257.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse and Society, 18(1), 53–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanny, C., & O’Connor, K. (2013). A dialogical approach to conceptualizing resident participation in community organizing. Mind, Culture, and Activity, Chicago. 20(4), 338–357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, P., Booher, D. E., Torfing, J., Sørensen, E., Ng, M. K., Peterson, P., & Albrechts, L. (2008). Civic engagement, spatial planning and democracy as a way of life civic engagement. Planning Theory & Practice, 9(3), 379–414.
   Google Scholar
• Kerosuo, H. (2003). Boundaries in health care discussions: An activity theoretical approach to the analysis of boundaries. In N. Paulsen & T. Hernes (Eds.), Managing boundaries in organizations: Multiple perspectives (pp. 169–187). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Meléndez, J. W. (2016). Identifying expansive learning in participatory budgeting: A case study of a democratic activity system ( Doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Chicago. Retrieved from http://indigo.uic.edu/handle/10027/21600
   Google Scholar
• Meléndez, J. W. (2018). Invited commentary: Aligning our pedagogy and practices with our cultural competency goals. eJournal of Public Affairs, 7(2). Retrieved from http://www.ejournalofpublicaffairs.org/aligning-our-pedagogy
   Google Scholar
• Meléndez, J. W., & Martinez-Cosio, M. (2019). Designing for equitable civic engagement: Participatory design and discourse in contested spaces. Journal of Civil Society. Article accepted for publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/17448689.2018.1559471.
   Google Scholar
• Meléndez, J. W., Radinsky, J., Vossoughi, S., Marin, A., Bang, M., Nolan, C., & Schmidt, A. (2018). Community-based design partnerships: Examples from a new generation of CHAT/DBR. Symposium conducted at the International Society for the Learning Sciences, London.
   Google Scholar
• Moser, C. O. (1989). Gender planning in the third World: Meeting practical and strategic gender needs. World Development, 17(11), 1799–1825.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muro, M., & Jeffrey, P. (2008). A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51(3), 325–344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Neill, D. K. (2016). When form follows fantasy: Lessons for learning scientists from modernist architecture and urban planning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(1), 133–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, B. (2006). Constructing community through maps? Power and praxis in community mapping. The Professional Geographer, 58(4), 470–484.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, B. (2017). Masculinities and markets: Raced and gendered urban politics in Milwaukee. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
   Google Scholar
• Penuel, W. R., & Wertsch, J. V. (1995). Vygotsky and identity formation: A sociocultural approach. Educational Psychologist, 30(2), 83–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radinsky, J., Milz, D., Zellner, M., Pudlock, K., Witek, C., Hoch, C., & Lyons, L. (2017). How planners and stakeholders learn with visualization tools: Using learning sciences methods to examine planning processes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60(7), 1296–1323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reed, M., Evely, A., Cundill, G., Fazey, I., Glass, J., Laing, A., & Stringer, L. (2010). What is social learning?. Ecology and Society, 15(4). Retrieved from https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/resp1/
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 42(1), 7–97.
   Google Scholar
• Wessells, A. T. (2017). Public reason and the planning academic. Planning Theory & Practice, 18(1), 163–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• While, A. (2016). Who writes for planning theory & practice and why? Planning Theory & Practice, 17(3), 319–322.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wortham, S. (2004). From good student to outcast: The emergence of a classroom identity. Ethos, 32(2), 164–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yiftachel, O. (1998). Planning and social control: Exploring the dark side. Journal of Planning Literature, 12(4), 395–406.
   Google Scholar
• Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zellner, M. L., Lyons, L. B., Hoch, C. J., Weizeorick, J., Kunda, C., & Milz, D. C. (2012). Modeling, learning, and planning together: An application of participatory agent-based modeling to environmental planning. Journal of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association, 24(1), 77–92.
   Google Scholar