CC-BYForester, John2025-05-202025-05-201999https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14235/2822Book of abstracts : AESOP PhD workshop 1999, Finse, Depertment of Geography Univeristy of Bergen, NorwayI have been exploring not only theories OF planning practice,but theories FOR planning practice as well. Theories OF practicemight help us to understand what planners do in some new ways,and they might help us to link the behavior and thought of planners to encompassing institutions, planning and political-economic history, or cultural influences (Sandercock 1995; Sandercock and Forsyth 1992; Friedmann 1987; Healey 1992, 1993, 1997; Hoch 1994;Baum 1997a, 1997b). But theories FOR practice might go one step further: to suggest, in effect, to planners that if they view their work in a certain way, they may avoid specific problems and achieve certain desired ends instead. Such a «use» of theory is not quite instrumental (to achieve this goal, use this means), but it is practical (by viewing value conflict, for example, in THIS way, we can consider THESE responses that might FIT our situation WELL and avoid substantial problems). Such theory depends on our having a sense of success and failure in planning, a sense of value to be gained or squandered, achieved or lost, a sense of welfare to be achieved or harms to be avoided. Thus «theory FOR planning practice» is intimately tied to a sense of the ethics of practice, what can be gained or lost in practice. So far, this does not specify which ethical arguments are necessarily involved, but it means that the «use» or «application» or «appropriation» of a «theory FOR practice» might enable planners to achieve some value or welfare and avoid some loss or harm. A theory that is USEFUL IN THIS WAY is necessarily (if often implicitly) wrapped up in ethics, since that is just what «useful» (consequentially good!) means. Otherwise, the theory would be use-less.EnglishopenAccessconferenceObject23-28