| Summary: | This study reconsiders cognitive development in planning theory, in order to expose the underlying cognitive framework through which academics communicate in planning literature. A cognitive framework develops over time and through experience within the minds of theorists and readers of planning theory. This framework forms the basis for orientation and interpretation of planning literature by the reader. This is illustrated by describing the various perspectives within planning theory and the connotations they have with different levels of theorising. The different perspectives involve the nature thereof, the history and its political conviction, underpinned by ideology. The different levels of theorising involve a framework which descends from thinking through to implementation and consists of a philosophical–, meta–theoretical– and a technical (tools) level. The problem is that the concept of a developed cognitive framework is rarely discussed in a constructive manner in planning literature. This proves to be the cause of confusion for students and other readers whom have not yet developed their own cognitive framework. An incomplete framework causes misconceptions from existing literature for example: the purpose of Faludi's book Planning Theory (1973). A discussion of this framework by academics could explain unresolved debates such as the substance and procedural debate and the normative theory versus the positive theory debate. The application of this framework proves that the political conflict in planning theory literature such as the more rational perspectives versus the more socio–political perspectives could be more constructive. Therefore this study argues that a cognitive framework could be determined by the general perspectives in planning literature together with different levels of theorising, and should become a constructive part of planning theory (debate) and education. Furthermore this study argues that if all perspectives are allowed to develop fully (non–competitive and attaining all different levels of theorising), connotations could be made on a meta–theoretical level to provide a proper cross range description of planning and provide a proper basis for comparison and would lead to more relevant and constructive debate(s). === Thesis (M.Art. et Scien. (Town and Regional Planning))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.
|
|---|
