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...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
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 |