From Apophenia to Epiphany: Making Planning Theory-Research-Practice Co-constitutive

This paper addresses the question of how planning research could be reasserted to balance the relationship between theory and practice. To that end, a twofold approach is taken: on the one hand, different interrelations among planning theory, research and practice are set out building on Jacques Lac...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Ignacio Castillo Ulloa
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: AESOP Association of the European Schools of Planning 2016-12-01
Series:PlaNext
Subjects:
Online Access:http://journals.aesop-planning.eu/volume-3/article-19/
id doaj-90ce375faf6a4dba8de6f92bc3414622
record_format Article
spelling doaj-90ce375faf6a4dba8de6f92bc34146222020-11-25T03:29:28ZengAESOP Association of the European Schools of PlanningPlaNext2468-06482016-12-013163510.24306/plnxt.2016.03.002From Apophenia to Epiphany: Making Planning Theory-Research-Practice Co-constitutiveIgnacio Castillo UlloaThis paper addresses the question of how planning research could be reasserted to balance the relationship between theory and practice. To that end, a twofold approach is taken: on the one hand, different interrelations among planning theory, research and practice are set out building on Jacques Lacan’s ‘four discourses’—the master’s, the university’s, the hysteric’s and the analyst’s. On the other hand, a process to formulate the plan regulador (local normative master plan) of a canton in southern Costa Rica is drawn upon, through storytelling, to shed light on the aforementioned relations. The article’s in-conclusion is that among planning theory, research and practice, rather than a synergic co-constitution, linkages that challenge, occlude, bypass or control one another are generated. Moreover, due to the apophenic ability of universal(izing)-technocratic(ized) theories to obviate the ‘right measure’ between action and reaction, discourses of research and practice are manipulated and the role of theory as ‘master signifier’ upheld. However, the ‘counter-discourses’ of both the hysteric and the analyst could be articulated by a planning ‘critical-hysterical’ research, which, in turn, would allow epiphanies to come to the fore, separate action from reaction and, pragmatically and dynamically, co-constitute planning theory, research and practice.http://journals.aesop-planning.eu/volume-3/article-19/lacanian discourseplanning decision-makingstorytellingmaster planplanning ‘critical-hysterical’ research
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Ignacio Castillo Ulloa
spellingShingle Ignacio Castillo Ulloa
From Apophenia to Epiphany: Making Planning Theory-Research-Practice Co-constitutive
PlaNext
lacanian discourse
planning decision-making
storytelling
master plan
planning ‘critical-hysterical’ research
author_facet Ignacio Castillo Ulloa
author_sort Ignacio Castillo Ulloa
title From Apophenia to Epiphany: Making Planning Theory-Research-Practice Co-constitutive
title_short From Apophenia to Epiphany: Making Planning Theory-Research-Practice Co-constitutive
title_full From Apophenia to Epiphany: Making Planning Theory-Research-Practice Co-constitutive
title_fullStr From Apophenia to Epiphany: Making Planning Theory-Research-Practice Co-constitutive
title_full_unstemmed From Apophenia to Epiphany: Making Planning Theory-Research-Practice Co-constitutive
title_sort from apophenia to epiphany: making planning theory-research-practice co-constitutive
publisher AESOP Association of the European Schools of Planning
series PlaNext
issn 2468-0648
publishDate 2016-12-01
description This paper addresses the question of how planning research could be reasserted to balance the relationship between theory and practice. To that end, a twofold approach is taken: on the one hand, different interrelations among planning theory, research and practice are set out building on Jacques Lacan’s ‘four discourses’—the master’s, the university’s, the hysteric’s and the analyst’s. On the other hand, a process to formulate the plan regulador (local normative master plan) of a canton in southern Costa Rica is drawn upon, through storytelling, to shed light on the aforementioned relations. The article’s in-conclusion is that among planning theory, research and practice, rather than a synergic co-constitution, linkages that challenge, occlude, bypass or control one another are generated. Moreover, due to the apophenic ability of universal(izing)-technocratic(ized) theories to obviate the ‘right measure’ between action and reaction, discourses of research and practice are manipulated and the role of theory as ‘master signifier’ upheld. However, the ‘counter-discourses’ of both the hysteric and the analyst could be articulated by a planning ‘critical-hysterical’ research, which, in turn, would allow epiphanies to come to the fore, separate action from reaction and, pragmatically and dynamically, co-constitute planning theory, research and practice.
topic lacanian discourse
planning decision-making
storytelling
master plan
planning ‘critical-hysterical’ research
url http://journals.aesop-planning.eu/volume-3/article-19/
work_keys_str_mv AT ignaciocastilloulloa fromapopheniatoepiphanymakingplanningtheoryresearchpracticecoconstitutive
_version_ 1724578975247761408