ABSTRACT
The interrelations between planning, history, and methodology can be disentangled along at least two major dimensions: histories of planning methodology and methodologies in planning history. The former tracks the introduction and efficacy of techniques as the scope, complexity, and wickedness of planning problems have grown over time. Wegener (et al. 2007: xix) link the emergence and popularity of techniques to “the dominant paradigm of planning at a particular time,” predicting that “innovation and productivity in the creation and application of new planning methods [is] … likely to be greatest in times when planning is in high esteem.” The rise of and responses to rationalism as a scientific method are major threads in this evolving story. Breheny and Batey (1981) outline the main developments and issues in evolving British and American planning methodology beginning with Patrick Geddes. Muller (1992: 125) takes the same starting point to conclude that “the prerequisite for planning has been access to tenable methods which are responsive to the needs of society.” The research potential liberated by these general surveys has lately been pursued by various scholars, including Guttenberg (2002) on land use planning, MacDonald (2008) on census research, Steinitz (2014) on GIS, and Boyce and Williams (2015) on transportation planning. But the planning history literature is full of more selective commentaries on planning technique in diverse contexts and times.
