Options Analysis as Context-Responsiveness in Practice: Integrating Diagnosis, Expertise, and Negotiation (Refining Communicative Planning and Critical Pragmatism)

References

• Adler, P., & Birkoff, J. (n.d.). Building trust. National Policy Consensus Center.
   Google Scholar
• Ansell, C. (2011). Pragmatist democracy: Evolutionary learning as public philosophy. Oxford University.
   Google Scholar
• Austin, J. (1961). Philosophical papers. Oxford University.
   Google Scholar
• Barrett, F. (2012). Yes to the mess. Harvard Business School.
   Google Scholar
• Baum, H. (1997). The organization of hope. State University of New York.
   Google Scholar
• Beutler, L. (2013). From nightmare to national implications. In J. Forester (Ed.), Planning in the face of conflict (pp. 59–78). American Planning Association Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bishop, J. (2015). The craft of collaborative planning. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Blijleven, W., & van Hulst, M. (2021). How do frontline civil servants engage the public? Practices, embedded agency, and bricolage. The American Review of Public Administration, 51(4), 278–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020983805.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyer, R., & Hopkins, L. D. (2018). Acting under the influence: Plans as improvisational gifts. Planning Theory, 17(1), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095216654729.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dauphinee, E. (2013). Writing as hope: Reflections on The Politics of Exile. Security Dialogue, 44(4), 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010613492838
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, T., & Hupe, P. Eds. (2020). Discretion and the quest for controlled freedom. Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Fainstein, S. (2010). The just city. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Fesmire, S. (2003). John Dewey and moral imagination. Indiana University.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (1981). Questioning and organizing attention: Toward a critical theory of planning and administrative practice. Administration and Society. 13(2), 161–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/009539978101300203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. University of California.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (2006). Policy analysis as critical listening. In M. Moran. Ed. Oxford handbook of public policy. Oxford University.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (2009). Dealing with differences. Oxford University.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (2013). On the theory and practice of critical pragmatism. Planning Theory, 12(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095212448750.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (2020). Five generations of theory-practice tensions. Socio-Ecological Practice Research, 2(1), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-019-00033-3.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (2021). How spaces become places. New Village Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J., Verloo, N., & Laws, D. (2021). Creative discretion and the structure of context-responsive improvising. Journal of Urban Affairs, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2021.1901589
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Seabury.
   Google Scholar
• Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain. Princeton University.
   Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H. (1984). Studies in ethnomethodology. Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning. UBC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hoch, C. (2017). Neo-pragmatist planning theory. In M. Gunder, A. Madanipour & V. Watson (Eds.), Routledge handbook of planning theory, 118–129. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hooks, B. (1993). Bell Hooks speaking about Paulo Freire – the man, his work. In P. McLaren & P. Leonard (Eds.), Paulo Freire. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Innes, J., & Booher, D. (2010). Planning with complexity. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Klemp, N., McDermott, R., Raley, J., Thibeault, M., Powell, K., & Levitin, D. J. (2008). Plans, takes, and mis-takes. Outlines-Critical Practice Studies, 10(1), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.7146/ocps.v10i1.1964.
   Google Scholar
• Knapp, C. E. (2017). Experimenting with anarchistic approaches to collaborative planning. Journal of Urban Affairs, 39(5), 635–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2017.1305767
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knapp, C. E., Poe, J., & Forester, J. (2022). On healing and repair in planning. Planning Theory and Practice, 23(3), 425–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2022.2082710
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krumholz, N., & Forester, J. (1990). Making equity planning work. Temple University.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society, 225–258. M.I.T. Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laws, D., & Forester, J. (2016). Conflict, improvisation, governance. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lax, D., & Sebenius, J. (2011). Manager as negotiator. Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leung, K., & Tong, K. (2004). Justice across cultures. In M. Gelfand & J. Brett (Ed.), Handbook of negotiation and culture. Stanford Business Books.
   Google Scholar
• Matsuura, M., & Schenk, T. Eds. (2017). Joint fact finding in urban planning and environmental disputes. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mishler, E. (1990). Validation in inquiry-guided research: The role of exemplars in narrative studies. Harvard Educational Review, 60(4), 415–443. https://doi.org/10.17763/HAER.60.4.N4405243P6635752.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, M. (1990). Love’s knowledge. Oxford University.
   Google Scholar
• Pappalardo, G. (2017). Community mapping and the mood for learning. In D. De Leo & J. Forester (Eds.), Reimagining planning (pp. 146–162). INU Press.
   Google Scholar
• Quick, K. (2022). Just talk: The promise and peril of dialogues about whiteness. Planning Theory and Practice, 23(3), 440–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2022.2082710
   Google Scholar
• Reardon, K., & Forester, J. (2016). Rebuilding community after Katrina. Temple University.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson, R. (2013). Creativity in the face of urban design conflict. In J. Forester (Ed.), Planning in the face of conflict (pp. 81–104). American Planning Association Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ryle, G. (1976). Improvisation. Mind, 85(337), 69–83. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2253256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, O. (2015). On the move. Knopf.
   Google Scholar
• Sager, T. (2018). Communicative planning. In M. Gunder, A. Madanipour & V. Watson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of planning theory. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sandercock, L. (2003). Dreaming the sustainable city: organizing hope, negotiating fear, mediating memory. In J. Throgmorton & B. Eckstein (Ed.), Story and sustainability. M.I.T. Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sandercock, L. (2023). Mapping possibility: Finding purpose and hope in community planning. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sandfort, J. R. (2000). Moving beyond discretion and outcomes. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), 729–756. https://academic.oup.com/jpart/article/10/4/729/994992.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, B., & Sharpe, K. (2010). Practical wisdom. Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Sclavi, M., & Buraschi, D. (2021). Humor as a major intellectual device for thriving in complexity. In K. Standish (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of positive peace. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Sclavi, M. (2017). Working with passion, anger, and creativity. In D. De Leo & J. Forester (Eds.), Reimagining planning. INU Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shklar, J. (1990). The faces of injustice. Yale.
   Google Scholar
• Song, L. (2016). Explaining creativity and transformative agency. Planning Theory & Practice, 17(2), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1158307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sorrel, K. (2014). Our better angels: Empathy, sympathetic reason, and pragmatic moral progress. The Pluralist, 9(1), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.5406/pluralist.9.1.0066
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Susskind, L., & Cruikshank, J. (1987). Breaking the impasse. Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Susskind, L., & Cruikshank, J. (2006). Breaking Roberts’ rules. Oxford University.
   Google Scholar
• Susskind, L., McKearnan, S., & Thomas Larmer, J. (1999). The consensus building handbook. Sage
   Google Scholar
• Tasan-Kok, T., & Oranje, M. Eds. (2017). From student to urban planner. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Umemoto, K. (2001). Walking in another’s shoes. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x0102100102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2005). Improvisation and innovative performance in teams. Organization Science, 16(3), 203–224. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0126
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vickers, G. (1968). The art of judgment. Metheun.
   Google Scholar
• Wagenaar, H. (2004). Knowing the rules. Public Administration Review, 64(6), 643–656. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00412.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagenaar, H. (2020). Discretion and street level practice. In T. Evans & P. Hupe (Eds.), Discretion and the quest for controlled freedom. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Weick, K. (1998). Improvisation as a mindset for organizational analysis. Organization Science, 9(5), 543–555. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.5.543
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wheeler, M. (2013). The art of negotiation. Simon and Schuster.
   Google Scholar