Detachment in Planning Practice

References

• Beauregard, R. (1996). Advocating preeminence: Anthologies as politics. In S. Mandelbaum, L. Mazza, & R. Burchell (Eds.), Explorations in planning theory (pp. 365–382). New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research.
   Google Scholar
• Caldeira, T. P. R. (2000). City of walls: Crime, segregation, and citizenship in São Paulo. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Caldeira, T. P. R. (2008). From modernism to neoliberalism in São Paulo: Reconfiguring the city and its citizens. In A. Huyssen (Ed.), Other cities, other worlds – Urban imaginaries in a globalizing age (pp. 51–77). Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, H., & Marshall, R. (1998). Acting on principle: Dilemmas in planning practice. Planning Practice and Research, 13(2), 117–128.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, H., & Marshall, R. (2000). Moral obligations, planning, and the public interest: A commentary on current British practice. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 27(2), 297–312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, H., & Marshall, R. (2005). Professionalism and planning in Britain. Town Planning Review, 76(2), 191–214.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, H., Tait, M., & Watkins, C. (2014). Is there space for better planning in a neoliberal world? Implications for planning practice and theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34(1), 45–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: Practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Coy, M. (2006). Gated communities and urban fragmentation in Latin America: The Brazilian experience. GeoJournal, 66, 121–132.
   Google Scholar
• Ewing, R. (1994). Characteristics, causes, and effects of sprawl: A literature review. Environmental and Urban Studies, 21(2), 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Fishman, R. (2002, September). Global suburbs. Paper presented at the First Biennial Conference of the Urban History Association, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. (1996). The dark side of planning: Rationality and ‘realrationalität.’. In S. Mandelbaum, L. Mazza, & R. Burchell (Eds.), Explorations in planning theory (pp. 365–382). New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2004). Phronetic planning research: Theoretical and methodological reflections. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(3), 283–306.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (2006). Making participation work when interests conflict: Moving from facilitating dialogue and moderating debate to mediating negotiations. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(4), 447–456.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (2012). Learning to improve practice: Lessons from practice stories and practitioners’ own discourse analyses (or why only the loons show up). Planning Theory & Practice, 13(1), 11–26.
   Google Scholar
• Fox-Rogers, L., & Murphy, E. (2016). Self-perceptions of the role of the planner. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 43(1), 74–92.
   Google Scholar
• Grant, J. (2005a). Planning the (dis)connected city: Why gated projects get approved. Cahiers de Géographie du Québec, 49(138), 363–376.
   Google Scholar
• Grant, J. (2005b). Planning responses to gated communities in Canada. Housing Studies, 20(2), 273–285.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant, J., & Curran, A. (2007). Privatized suburbia: The planning implications of private roads. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34(4), 740–754.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunder, M., & Mouat, C. (2002). Symbolic violence and victimization in planning processes: A reconnoitre of the New Zealand resource management act. Planning Theory, 1(2), 124–145.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison, P. (2014). Making planning theory real. Planning Theory, 13(1), 65–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2003). Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory, 2(2), 101–123.
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, J. (2002). Shadows of power: An allegory of prudence in land-use planning. London and New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hoch, C. (1994). What planners do: Power, politics, and persuasion. Chicago: American Planning Association Press.
   Google Scholar
• Howe, E., & Kaufman, J. (1981). The values of contemporary American planners. Journal of the American Planning Association, 47(3), 266–278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inch, A. (2010). Culture change as identity regulation: The micro-politics of producing spatial planners in England. Planning Theory and Practice, 11(3), 359–374.
   Google Scholar
• Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2015). A turning point for planning theory? Overcoming dividing discourses. Planning Theory, 14(2), 195–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Goix, R. (2005). Gated communities: Sprawl and social segregation in Southern California. Housing Studies, 20(2), 323–343.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, A. C. (1998). Bridging positivist and interpretivist approaches to qualitative methods. Policy Studies Journal, 26(1), 162–180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linovski, O. (2016). Politics of expertise: Constructing professional design knowledge in the public and private sectors. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 36(4), 451–464.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linovski, O. (2018). Shifting agendas: Private consultants and public planning policy. Urban Affairs Review, 1–36. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087417752475
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lofland, J., Snow, D. A., Anderson, L., & Lofland, L. H. (2006). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis (Fourth ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar
• Loh, C. G., & Arroyo, R. L. (2017). Special ethical considerations for planners in private practice. Journal of the American Planning Association, 83(2), 168–179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loh, C. G., & Norton, R. K. (2013). Planning consultants and local planning: Roles and values. Journal of the American Planning Association, 79(2), 138–147.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loh, C. G., & Norton, R. K. (2015). Planning consultants’ influence on local comprehensive plans. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 35(2), 199–208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Low, S. M. (2001). The edge and the center: Gated communities and thed of urban fear. American Anthropologist, 103(1), 45–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice theory, work, and organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sager, T. (2011). Neo-liberal urban planning policies: A literature survey 1990–2010. Progress in Planning, 76, 147–199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sager, T. (2013). Reviving critical planning theory: Dealing with pressure, neo-liberalism, and responsibility in communicative planning. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Todres, L. (2007). Embodied enquiry: Phenomenological touchstones for research, psychotherapy and spirituality. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Todres, L. (2008). Being with that: The relevance of embodied understanding for practice. Qualitative Health Research, 18(11), 1566–1573.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, V. (2002). Do we learn from planning practice? The contribution of the practice movement to planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(2), 178–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, V. (2003). Conflicting rationalities: Implications for planning theory and ethics. Planning Theory and Practice, 4(4), 395–408.
   Google Scholar
• Watson, V. (2009). Seeing from the South: Refocusing urban planning on the globe’s central urban issues. Urban Studies, 46(11), 2259–2275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wertz, M. S., Nosek, M., McNoesh, S., & Marlow, E. (2011). The composite first person narrative: Texture, structure, and meaning in writing phenomenological descriptions. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Health and Well-being, 6, 2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yiftachel, O. (1995). Planning as control: Policy and resistance in a deeply divided society. Progress in Planning, 44, 115–184.
   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
• Yiftachel, O. (2006). Re-engaging planning theory? Towards ‘south-eastern’ perspectives. Planning Theory, 5(3), 211–222.
   Google Scholar
• Zanotto, J. M. (2016). The making of global suburbs: Globalization, neoliberalism, and planning practices (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6bp439m0
   Google Scholar