MIND THE GAP*
Imaginaries on the Dutch planning education and planning practiceMaster's thesis
Mind the Gap Imaginaries on the Dutch planning education and planning practice Master's thesis Master of Urban and Regional Planning Graduate School of Social Sciences, GSSS University of Amsterdam Student: A. van der Horst (10366598), anoukvdhorst@outlook.com Supervisor and first reader: Prof. Dr. M. T. Taşan-Kok, m.t.tasankok@uva.nl Second reader: Prof. Dr. M. Kaika, m.kaika@uva.nl Date: 11th of June, 2018
Abstract
This qualitative study aims to explain the gap between planning education and practice by studying the impact of imaginaries. Imaginaries are about the imagination of people, their perceived reality, what is constituted in shared social practices. It is the argument that academic planning programs are established through imaginaries on planning. From this point of view, supported by empirical data from the Dutch planning education and practice, the link between planning education and practice is being examined from the perspective of planning educators and practitioners. In the Netherlands, various academic programs at six universities teach within the planning field and it is the aim of this study to look at how the education contributes to the reality. Findings are that the variety of the academic programs contribute to the different imaginaries on the planning practice, academic skills and knowledge are essential skills for a planner and that it is all about 'learning on the job': planning is a life-long learning process. However, the gap as experienced by planning students and young planning practitioners seems to be about a mismatch in expectations with the education field.
Acknowledgements
Finishing this master research successfully, means that I am graduated and that I will enter the professional world of planning myself. During the last year, I was wondering with every master course on topics of planning: 'What is the role of the planner in this?', 'What are the actual skills of a planner and what tools can they effectively use?' and 'With this knowledge, am I ready to be a planner yet?'. For this master thesis, I not only thought that it was interesting for myself to research the link between planning education and practice, but also for the development of the planning programs at the university level. Graduates from academic planning programs are not trained to do the planning profession, but are educated to have academic thinking and working skills with a focus on planning. That is the difficulty about the planning profession within education: it is closely connected with the real-world. I felt the urge to write on this topic to address the important ties between planning education and practice. Writing this research, I learned that it is necessary that students know that when they graduate from an academic planning program, the learning won't stop. Entering the real world, the planning practice, is also part of developing knowledge on planning. But the demands of both worlds, the academic and the real practice, should be more clear and well-connected for the perspective of students who need to constantly make the translation from the university setting to the planning practice.
I am grateful that Tuna Taşan-Kok, editor of From Student to Urban Planner, was my thesis supervisor and guided me along writing this research. In her work, the struggles of young planning practitioners are shown to be real and that graduated planners may experience a gap between their academic knowledge and the real-world practice. Conversations about her own experiences and knowledge on this topic, her enthusiasm and guidance of this master thesis, really did inspire me. Also many thanks to the people I interviewed. By talking and discussing about what a planner in the real world does or about the variety in planning programs, it broadened my perspective on the link between planning education and planning practice.
Anouk van der Horst June 2018, Amsterdam
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1: Interrelated features of spatial imaginaries, source: Davoudi, 2018 17 Table 2: Features of social, spatial and sociotechnical imaginaries, source: author 18 Table 3: Overview Dutch planning programs, source: website universities 23 Table 4: NVAO publications on planning programs, source: website NVAO 23 Table 5: Questions semi-structured interview planning educators, source: author 24
Table 6: Bachelor programs profiles, source: author 30
Table 7: Master programs profiles, source: author 31
Table 8: Dublin-descriptors bachelor and master programs, source: visitations 33
Table 9: Imaginaries on the gap, source: author 44
Table 10: Appendix, list of interviewees, source: author 54
Contents
Abstract 3
Acknowledgements 4
List of Tables and Figures 5
Contents 6
1 Introduction 7
2 Theoretical Framework 11
Gap between planning education and practice 11
Theories of imaginaries 13
Combining the gap and imaginaries: transformative imagination 19
3 Methodology 20
Research strategy and design 20
Research and analytical methods 22
4 Planning in the Netherlands 25
5 The Link Between Planning Education and Practice in the Netherlands 29
Profiles of the academic planning programs 29
Planning educators' perspective on the gap 36
Self-reflection of planning practitioners 38
6 Imaginaries on the Gap 41
Social imaginaries 41 Spatial imaginaries 42 Sociotechnical imaginaries 43 Transformative imaginaries 43 7 Discussion 45 8 Conclusion 47 References 49 Appendix 54 Endnotes 55
1
Introduction
In the Netherlands, the planning discipline is taught at six universities within various educational programs. Whether it is 'Urban and Regional Planning', 'Spatial Planning and Design', 'Strategic Spatial Planning', most of the graduates from these planning programs will practice planning themselves. But it is questioned whether the knowledge and skills that are developed in planning education match the expectations and demands of the planning practice. Young planning practitioners often experience a gap between planning education and practice. This research will take a closer look at the variety in educational planning programs and at reflections on the planning practice in the Netherlands to see in what way they contribute to bridging planning education and planning practice and if there is a gap. Planning is a relatively new discipline, which emerged from a variety of other professions in order to understand and address the societal challenges in the early twentieth century (Silver, 2018). These challenges concerned the rapidly growing cities and regions and there was a ''need for professionals in architecture, landscape architecture, engineering, public health and law'' (Silver, 2018, p. 11). The planning discipline was created by combining these various fields in order to devise interventions in society. It developed into an academic discipline, also ''rooted in the societal challenges faced by the rapidly expanding industrial cities'' (Davoudi & Pendlebury, 2010, p. 617). The focus of the planning education at the start of the planning profession was mainly at design, but ''has evolved into a discipline with a clear social science orientation'' (Taşan-Kok et al., 2018, p. 17). The problems and challenges that society is facing, are fundamentally changing and therefore planning should have the knowledge about societal dynamics. In Healey's (1997) understanding, planning is ''a governance activity occurring in complex and dynamic institutional environments, shaped by wider economic, social and environmental forces that structure, but do not determine, specific interactions'' (cited in Albrechts, 2018, p. 287). This definition of planning shows that the discipline could not be seen separately from its context – the challenges and problems arising in society – which ask for new solutions and continuous developing knowledge. The purpose of planning can be understood, according to Silver (2014), as ''to protect the public, health, safety and welfare, to address uncertainty about the future, to analyse and prepare for emerging trends and demographic change, to plan for and sustain the environment, economy and equity'' (idem). Because of this wide-spreading interest, planning is related to a variety of disciplines (Campbell & Fainstein, 1996). This has resulted in diffuse boundaries of the planning field, because there is argued to be no planning theory, only planning theories that emerged out of other disciplines. Davoudi and Pendlebury argue that ''the intellectual underpinning of
planning has remained ambitious'', although it has evolved into a distinct discipline in institutional terms with a clear spatial focus (Davoudi & Pendlebury, 2010, p. 614).
This creates a certain expectation for planning education and especially for the relation between education and practice. It is argued by Ozawa and Seltzer (1999) that therefore, the planning education is a contested terrain, because ''the demands of professional practice and those for meaningful graduate education exert separate sets of pressures on planning curricula'' (Ozawa & Seltzer, 1999, p. 257). It should be about bridging theory and practice, which would ''benefit academicians and practitioners alike, and serve to clarify the ways in which university-based theory building contributors to the evolution of this dynamic field'' (Ozawa & Seltzer, 1999, p. 265). It is important to stress the close ties between planning education and planning practice, because it is argued that they are growing apart (Taşan-Kok et al., 2018, p. 18). This is due to concerns about the preparation of graduates when they are going to face the real-world challenges. [Friedmann (1996)] says ''that existing planning programs prepared students inadequately, particularly regarding their knowledge of the urban habitat, and that there was a widespread neglect of methods and skills such as spatial analysis, negotiation and mediation, professional ethics, communication and rhetoric, and programme and project evaluation'' (in idem). Taşan-Kok and Oranje (2018b) started out from this view, that young planning practitioners experience a gap ''between the power they thought they would have and what they actually do''. Different contributors to this book (scholars and young planning practitioners) provide reflections, suggestions and experiences on this gap. In the concluding remarks of the publication, Taşan-Kok and Oranje state:
''[...] what planning schools need to do is clear: profile themselves; provide students perspectives on their choices; and link practitioners to the education programs [...] Moreover, planning programs need to engage more actively with new societal challenges that directly impact urban development [but are] not embedded in planning curriculums'' (Taşan-Kok & Oranje, 2018, p. 310).
Because it is argued that young planning practitioners experience a gap between planning education and planning practice, exploring the construct of the imaginary may provide an interesting perspective to examine how thinking of this gap by education and practice is derived. The main contributors to this link that will be researched in this study, are the planning educators and planning practitioners. Focussing on the planning practice, what is lacking, is literature on the personal dynamics of planners (Oranje et al., 2018). ''Literature related to planners tend to be normative, with a focus on what planners should or should not do, what their actions suggest, or what their perspectives on and experiences of a specific aspect of planning is (Allmendinger, 2009; Anhorn, 2009; Forester, 1996; Healey, 1992, 1999; in Oranje et al., 2018, p. 75). Oranje et al. argues that more attention has to be given to social and cultural issues that might influence the planners' views and actions. ''The lack of research
in this field seems to indicate a belief that planning education and professional development can successfully 'indoctrinate planners into a professional culture' […]'' (Oranje, et al., 2018, p. 76). But what is also lacking, focusing on the planning education, is literature on the personal dynamics of the planning educators. It is quite underexposed how the role of planning educators is perceived and what their personal influence is on the planning curricula and therefore on the link between education and practice. This focus on these imaginaries requires insight in both the field of psychology and sociology. Therefore, the link between planning education and planning practice will be studied through the theoretical framework of imaginaries. This is about the imagination that influence thinking and action. Imaginaries are the perceived reality of people what they ought to be true and can provide personal reflections on the planning curricula and planning practice.
It is the argument of the research that there are different views, or imaginaries, on the planning education and planning practice, or the perspectives of educators and practitioners, which influence the link between them. This study aims to explore the different imaginaries, in order to understand how the link between planning education and practice is perceived. How is the dynamic field of planning addressed in planning education, is there a specific planning identity and how do the planning programs ''balance the tension between university context and the world of the professional planner, and between theory and practice'' (Ozawa & Seltzer, 1999, p. 257). The research tries to link planning education with planning practice, to combine the academic world and the real-world and to bridge theory and practice. ''Creating a close link between planning education and planning practice is crucial for prioritizing curricular offerings and for ensuring that the transition from graduate school to practice is part of a process of lifelong learning'' (idem).
Establishing the focus of this study, the main research question is the following: How do contemporary imaginaries of planning educators and practitioners define the
gap between planning education and practice?
The study presents empirical material from the Dutch planning education and practice to examine the different imaginaries. ''The Netherlands present an image of a well-planned and coordinated society and the reality of its built environment attests to some successes in Dutch planning practice'' (Alexander, 2002, p. 35). The bicycling system, the Green Heart and the Randstad, the Vinex-neighbourhoods and the water management system have greatly determined this image (Korthals Altes & Taşan-Kok, 2018; Roodbol-Mekkes, et al., 2012). For outsiders, this is a structured image because they ''see a well-coordinated effort and a context in which planning matters'' (Korthals Altes & Taşan-Kok, 2018, p. 251). But as Healey's definition of planning explains, planning is a dynamic field shaped by societal forces. This approach towards planning, is what drives the academic planning programs. In the
Netherlands, planning is taught at universities in Amsterdam, Delft, Utrecht, Wageningen, Groningen and Nijmegen. All of these programs have their own focus of study in the field of planning. They provide different 'lenses' through which the students will understand, address and provide solutions for socio-spatial challenges.
This research starts in chapter 2 by providing a literature review on the gap between planning education and practice. It is followed by the outline of the theoretical framework on imaginaries. Social imaginaries are discussed as the understanding of people's imaginative frameworks and the relation between 'self and society'. Spatial imaginaries contribute to the image of materiality which influence people's thinking and action. Also, sociotechnical imaginaries are outlined in order to understand future visions which affect social practice. Then, the concept of transformative imaginaries is introduced. I argue that transformative abilities in thinking are necessary in order to make the translation from education to practice or from theory to practice. In the next chapter, the methods of this study are addressed. The research strategy and design will explain the qualitative research with use of documents and semi-structured interviews within the context of the Dutch planning education and practice. Chapter 4 sets the scene for the research and discusses planning in the Netherlands. Chapter 5 presents the findings of the research on how the profiles of the academic planning programs are aimed at the relation between education and practice, how the planning educators see the gap and how the planning practitioners experienced a gap themselves. The next chapter, chapter 6, will analyse the findings within the theoretical framework of imaginaries. At the end of this research, the study returns in the conclusion to the research question and briefly concludes with the imaginaries on the link between planning education and practice by the planning educators and practitioners. Finally, it will look whether or not there is such a gap and if this matters.
2
Theoretical Framework
In this chapter, the idea of imaginaries is used as a framework to understand the dynamics of the experienced gap between education and practice. Several notions of imaginaries are helpful in addressing an ontology of planning education and practice, that there are different views and realities possible among different people and that personal preferences play a great part in constructing imaginaries. First, this chapter will provide a literature review on the gap between planning education and planning practice. Then, the theoretical framework on social, spatial and sociotechnical imaginaries is outlined. Social imaginaries can contribute to a moral order on thinking about and acting on the gap. Spatial imaginaries can contribute to thinking about the diversity in planning programs and planning practices. Sociotechnical imaginaries are future oriented and provide guiding visions for the translation from planning education to practice. Therefore, this research is framed around how thought, imagination and experiences of things are organised and constituted in linking planning education and practice.
Gap between planning education and practice
It is argued by Taşan-Kok and Oranje, that young planning practitioners experience a gap between planning education and practice. The current practice of planning is most of all shaped by prevailing political-economic conditions, such as neoliberalism (Taşan-Kok & Oranje, 2018). Neoliberalism with regard to planning is based on market-oriented dynamics, which influence the field of action in planning, but also the experiences of planners in practice (Taşan-Kok et al., 2016). This results in a tension for planners of ''attempting to marry up the personal dynamic with the will to act, and to act in a particular way'' (Clifford & Tewdwr-Jones, 2014, p. 187). On the one hand, planners are part of a specialised area of knowledge for which they are educated, and on the other hand, dynamics in society ask for another relationship between 'the planner' and 'the planned' (idem). Therefore, neoliberal conditions create pressure on the planner, to act contrary to what has been taught by planning education (Forester, 1982; Sager, 2009; Taşan-Kok & Oranje, 2018; Taşan-Kok et al., 2016). This is also understood as a gap between academic and practitioner understanding of practice. Often very early in the careers of young planning practitioners, the 'planning ethos', or the ''beliefs and teachings of planning educators'', that has been taught in their education, is abandoned (Taşan-Kok & Oranje, 2018).
A clear relation between education and practice is argued to be important as part of a lifelong learning process (Ozawa & Seltzer, 1999). The link is concerned with bridging the worlds of the academic programs and the real-world practice. But as Ozawa and Seltzer argue,
these worlds have their own demands and often work in opposition. Education is concerned with academic legitimacy, which include a meaningful graduation curriculum within a university context. The real-world practice is about a professional practice, with a variety of interests, roles and skills. The article states that students demand for effectively bridging these two. ''Appreciation of these new demands is tempered by the realization that the university environment also places particular constraints and expectations on graduate education, specifically with regard to theoretical foundations of the field, and that the academy can also serve to propel the profession forward by legitimating more innovative aspects of practice'' (Ozawa & Seltzer, 1999, p. 258). Therefore, theory can be seen as a bridging factor: on the one hand, knowledge is developed by students through theory, but also through theory, more innovative practices can be developed. Planning theories makes it possible to see the reality through different lenses, it is not about what is true reality, but what the different meanings and possibilities of this reality are (Salet, 2015). ''In general, it is possible to distinguish theory and practice, and think of academics and practitioners to represent them'' (Araabi, 2018, p. 213). It is argued that how knowledge is developed in the university setting, therefore theories, does not exactly fit with what is needed in practice (Alexander, 1997). This gap between theory and practice, as well as the gap between education and practice, is about different demands. Discussing this gap implies that practitioners need theory and academics need the real-world practice.
How to overcome the divide between theory and practice, has been subject of many debates and literature and research studies. But when looking at this gap, Alexander (1997) asks: Is there a gap between planning theory and practice and if so, does it matter? ''The answer he provides is that, because planning is embedded in the micropolitics of practice, a straight translation of normative (what ought to be) and positive (how to do it) theory is not possible. The theory-practice gap is unbridgeable and will always exist'' (Allmendinger & Tewdwr-Jones, 1997, p. 802). So there seems to be a gap, and this is agreed on by Allmendinger and Tewdwr-Jones(1997). They state that the process of bridging this gap, or making the translation from theory to practice, demands the impact of ''the political (Forester, 1982), the professional (Krumholz, 1994), the state (Low, 1991), the public (Healey, 1996), and the individual (Friedmann, 1987) on their problem-solving process'' (idem, p. 804).
The debate about a gap between education and practice, or theory and practice, is about the translation from knowledge to action, but also whether the knowledge which is derived from theories is useful in the planning practice. How knowledge is translated into action, not only involves ''transformation of abstract theoretical knowledge in concrete prescriptions for case-specific actions'' (Alexander, 1997, p. 5) but is also about the social transmission, through thought, imagination and people's own experience. Theory can become the basis of practice through translation (from knowledge to action) or through enlightenment. This is about raising the awareness, or the consciousness, ''through education and training, and implies that the transformation of theoretical insights into action is mediated by actors'
understanding and judgement'' (Alexander, 1997, p. 4). According to Allmendinger and Tewdwr-Jones, it is not about bridging or removing the gap between theory and practice, but to understand this gap. Discourse plays a role in the link between theory and practice and must be understood as ''a transpersonal activity constituted out of both sociopolitical reality and psychic reality'' (in Allmendinger & Tewdwr-Jones, 1997, p. 805; Samuels, 1993). In the next section, a theoretical framework is outlined around the ideas of imaginaries.
''The role of any discourse on planning theory-practice – particularly in planning education – is to assist students and practitioners to understand the gap rather than attempt to undertake a wasteful exercise in trying to bridge it. Educators need to identify the dilemmas and uncertainties, the problems and complexities within the planning theory-practice gap'' (Allmendinger & Tewdwr-Jones, 1997, p. 804).
Theories of imaginaries
Imaginaries are conceptual framings and systems of meaning. It links to people's imaginative skills. Imagination can be seen as a ''necessary mediator that enables us to conceive of the real in the first place and act on it. It is seen as an enabling power and a motivation force for change'' (in Davoudi, 2018, p. 98; Polanyi, 1966; Sartre, 2012). In her article, Davoudi links the imagination to the visionary planners of the early twentieth century where the imagination is a product of the individual mind. But the concept of imaginaries is also used in academic literature in the notion of social imaginaries, a collective imagination that operates at an intersubjective level. It relates to the discipline of philosophy and sociology and is about temporary coherence and identity (Davoudi, 2018). Social imaginaries can act as the framework of people's experiences, actions and life. These imaginaries are an implicate order through which understanding passes and also explains human behaviour (Durand, 1993). The theories on social imaginaries is understood through the emotions of people and not through their reason, and is so about people's imaginative skills. Imaginaries on the gap between planning education and practice, therefore, includes personal assumptions about the nature of this gap and how planning education and practice should be connected. Discourses can play a part in the collective imagining of this gap and how it should (or should not) be bridged. This section of the chapter will provide an overview of helpful theories on imaginaries than can offer understanding in how is thought and acted on the gap between education and practice. Social imaginaries
Theories on social imaginaries first have been applied in order to understand how modern societies and their institutions work (Davoudi, 2018). Anderson (1983) with his work Imagined Communities, argues that a 'nation' is a product of the collective imagination of the people who see themselves as a part of that nation: an imagined community that is formed
through technologies which connects the members. It brings about a collective identity, though imagined. The work of Charles Taylor (2002), a philosopher, put emphasis on the social background. In his work Modern Social Imaginaries he states that ''the number one problem of modern social sciences has been modernity itself'' by which he means the new practices, institutions, ways of living and 'forms of malaise' that have emerged in society (Taylor, 2002, p. 91). Taylor tries to understand these issues by looking at social imaginaries. Social imaginaries, he argues, are self-understandings and may not be confused with 'ideas' on certain issues. It is rather ''what enables, through making sense of, the practices of a society'' (idem). Taylor relates the concept of social imaginary to a moral order: an idea in someone's mind becomes self-evident, their reality. The developments of various social forms, for example 'the market economy', can be seen as the mutation of a moral order into a social imaginary. The moral order tells us about how we ought to live together in society. These labels (market economy, etc.) become a taken-for-granted view on reality and can be seen as a result of social imaginaries.
''What I'm trying to get at with this term is something much broader and deeper than the intellectual schemes people may entertain when they think about social reality in a disengaged mode. I am thinking rather of the ways in which people imagine their social existence, how they fit together with others, how things go on between them and their fellows, the expectations that are normally met, and the deeper normative notions and images that underlie these expectations'' (Taylor, 2002, p. 106).
The work by Castoriadis (1987) adds to the understanding of the relations between the self and society. Cornelius Castoriadis, a philosopher and economist, published the work The Imaginary Institutions of Society. In his work, Castoriadis tries to grasp the way in which a society is within history. He argues that the social imaginary is connected to a society within a historical period. Castoriadis says in the preface: ''The imaginary does not come from the image in the mirror or from the gaze of the other. Instead, the 'mirror' itself and its possibility, and the other as mirror, are the works of the imaginary, which is creation ex nihilo'' (Castoriadis, 1987, p. 3). The imaginary is not a representation, but it creates a reality and rationality through figures, forms and images and it is what is called 'reality' or 'rationality'. But this reality that is linked to a certain society, can only be experienced and be lived within the society itself. The social imaginaries are therefore the bridging factor to understand the society within history, for ''the imaginary of the society creates for each historical period its singular ways of living, seeing and making its own existence'' (idem). The society is the self-creation which is unfolded as history. This makes the notion of imaginary social according to Castoriadis, because it is a collective entity.
As stated before, imagination is the work of the individual mind and create a ''set of meanings, symbols, values, narratives, and representations of the world through which people
imagine their existence'' (Bevir, 2010, p. 685). Social imaginaries can be understood as people's grasp of society as a collective entity and that there is a more or less subconsciousness that influence how people experience their world. When turning back to the individual imagination, the content and legitimacy of the individual self-interpretation comes from the self-interpretation of society, therefore the social imaginary (in Brinkmann, 2008; Taylor, 2004). The social imaginary is not in the heads of people, ''but is lived and constituted in shared social practices'' (Brinkmann, 2008, p. 405). It can act as people's world-view and what produces communities with a shared identity (Naugle, 2002). It let the people of those communities believe what should be real and normal, or unreal and abnormal, in their own environment. It is argued by Taylor (2004) that these shared identities, that are dependent upon moral traditions and social imaginaries, are embedded in practices. ''Certain moral self-understandings are embedded in certain practices, which can mean both that they are promoted by the spread of these practices and that they shape the practices and help them get established'' (Taylor, 2004, p. 63).
For this theoretical stance it is interesting to look at the theory of social practice with reflection to a collective consciousness. The notion of social imaginary by Castoriadis and Taylor can be linked to what the sociologists Bourdieu (1977) called habitus and field. ''Habitus is an internalized mental, or cognitive, structure through which people deal with the social world'' (in Ritzer, 2011, p. 70). It is about a subjective experience within objective social structures, which Bourdieu calls the field in which we act. The habitus influences and is influenced by its surroundings, the field. This is a dialectical relationship between the two concepts. The habitus operates outside of people's consciousness, because it is seen as part of their field (as to say a shared and collective identity). According to Castoriadis, ''if individual human beings cannot exist outside the imaginary significations that are internalized through language, it equally holds true that the latter cannot exist without the individual human beings who continuously sustain and recreate them'' (in Bevir, 2010, p. 686). Therefore, social imaginaries contribute to the understanding of a collective set of meaning and shared senses of belonging. It guides how people collectively see and order their world. It is about background understanding and about understanding the self in relation to the society.
Spatial imaginaries
The role of space and place was argued to be missing in the literature on social imaginaries (Davoudi, 2018). But a large body of literature have been written on the topic of spatial imaginaries, mostly by geographers (Said, 1978; Watkins, 2015). The notion of space into imaginaries was first made by Said (1978), where he spoke in his publication Orientalism of spatial imaginaries as representational discourses. ''Drawing from the discourse theory of Foucault, Said identified the Orient as a representation constituted through discourse describing it as a unique region. For Said, the production of imaginary geographies derived from places being linguistically represented in images and text'' (Said, 1978; in Watkins, 2015,
p. 515). He wrote about geographical dilemmas, that it is not only about the material world, but also about images and imagination. It shapes the social perception about places, even when someone has never visited that place (Gregory, 2004). Spatial imaginaries are the collectively held idea about places (Driver, 2005). An example of a spatial imaginary is given in the article by Watkins (2015), where he argues that while most of the people have never visited a Chinese city, we will all have an idea of what it looks like (Watkins, 2015). ''As a spatial imaginary, Shanghai is circulated through language, images, and texts telling a story of China's impressive economic growth through globalization, symbolized by its urbanization. This story materializes into geographies when people act in relation to, and through, this spatial imaginary. In this sense, spatial imaginaries are not just representative, but performative'' (Watkins, 2015, p. 509). Over time, these images of places become the taken-for-granted representation of that place (Davoudi, 2018). Spatial imaginaries, therefore, describe identities and links them to certain places. It is about how social imaginaries about space and place also have an impact on material geographies and not only have an impact on perceptions (Watkins, 2015). Spatial imaginaries can describe a discourse about places, and are thus representative, but also can be defined as performative because people act on these discourses.
What is interesting to this research, is the relationship between the social imaginary and the spatial imaginary. A critique towards the literature on spatial imaginaries is that it ''largely focuses on the social construction of spatial imaginaries and pays little attention to the role of space and place in the construction of social imaginaries'' (Davoudi, 2018, p. 97). A relational view, a dialectical relationship, can provide insight in this. Davoudi presents in Imagination and spatial imaginaries: a conceptual framework how this relational perspective can be conceptualised.
''Spatial imaginaries are deeply held, collective understandings of socio-spatial relations that are performed by, give sense to, make possible and change collective socio-spatial practices. They are produced through political struggles over the conceptions, perceptions and lived experiences of place. They are circulated and propagated through images, stories, texts, data, algorithms and performances. They are infused by relations of power in which contestation and resistance are ever-present'' (Davoudi, 2018, p. 101).
The notion of Davoudi on spatial imaginaries is closely linked to the understanding of social imaginaries. Spatial imaginaries as understood by Davoudi, are set out in a number of interrelated features. First, spatial imaginaries are background understandings and are about the taken-for-granted view of spaces and places. This connects to the social imaginary. ''They help us make connections between our individual self-understanding of place and the modern ideal of spatial order'' (idem). Second, spatial imaginaries are emergent, a certain moral order
which develops into imaginaries. It can be about a single thought by an individual that translated into a spatial imaginary through thoughts and practices by others. This translation has to be made possible by a ''complex assemblage of investments'' (idem, p. 102). Ideas and practices are therefore reinforcing their effects. This is also about the performative character of spatial imaginaries. Spatial imaginaries not just represent spaces, but also enables and legitimise them. ''Consider Le Corbusier's 'skyscrapers in the park'. It did not just represent the modern city; it created it by begin taken up in the construction of thousands of high-rise blocks […]'' (idem, p. 103). Also, spatial imaginaries are collective which underlines the notion of social imaginaries that the imaginaries are shared by a large group of people. ''It is through the collective agency of spatial imaginaries that certain places are called into being […]'' (idem, p. 103). The performative and collective character is what distinguish them from the individual imagination. Davoudi continues the interrelated features of spatial imaginaries by saying that they are epistemic and normative, which is not only about the representation of places, but also about how places ought to be. This can also result in how places finally will be. ''Planning has played a key role in producing, spreading and putting into practice such idealised models'' (idem, p. 104). And finally, spatial imaginaries are contingent and dynamic. ''Through power-infused processes of redaction, spatial imaginaries are reflected on, debated, adapted and confronted with resistance, contestation and change (Crawford, 2018; in Davoudi, 2018, p. 106).
Features of spatial imaginaries
Background understandings Emergent
Collective Performative
Epistemic and normative Contingent and dynamic
Table 1: Interrelated features of spatial imaginaries, source: Davoudi, 2018
Sociotechnical imaginaries
Another perspective on the theories of imaginaries, is the notion of sociotechnical imaginaries. Besides social imaginaries, sociotechnical imaginaries inform visions and are future oriented. For example, for the provision of energy or mobility in planning, visions are necessary in thinking of what the global system might look like. ''[Scientists and technologists are] constantly trying to understand the present by borrowing from a cautiously imagined emergent future, filled with volatility, and uncertainty, but in which faith in practices of technoscience become even more complexly and interestingly constructed'' (Marcus, 1995, p.
4). This perspective on imaginaries, can inform how people view and act on these visions, which in their turn shape the process towards this future vision. It is about how science and technology have an impact in producing and performing visions of the collective good. Sociotechnical imaginaries are therefore propagating ideas. They have performative, visible and instrumental characteristics (Jasanoff, 2015).
''Our definition pulls together the normativity of the imagination with the materiality of networks: sociotechnical imaginaries thus are ''collectively held and performed visions of desirable futures'' (or of resistance against the undesirable), and they are also ''animated by shared understandings of forms of social life and social order attainable through, and supportive of, advances in science and technology'''' (Jasanoff, 2015, p. 19).
Revising the imaginaries
In this study, the ideas of imaginaries can contribute to the understanding of a moral order on thinking about and acting on this gap. Social imaginaries are linked to the understanding of the background of decisions or the relation between the self and the society. The materiality of imaginaries is discussed in the concept of spatial imaginaries. They are representative and performative and the images of 'places' can become taken-for-granted views on reality. The sociotechnical imaginaries are future oriented and can therefore shape actions towards these visions. According to Taylor (1998), this is what planning is about. ''It is about intervening in the world to protect or change it in some way - to make it other than it would otherwise be without planning'' (Taylor, 1998, p. 167). Imagination may therefore be an important qualification to planners to reconstitute a different place within the messy and contentious field (Campbell & Fainstein, 1996) that planning is.
Imaginary Features
Social imaginary Common understandings and practices based on a sense of what is real
(Castoriadis, 1987; Taylor, 2002). A shared sense of legitimacy. About the relation between self and society.
Spatial imaginary The notion of materiality. Understandings of socio-spatial relations that are
performed by, give sense to, make possible and change collective socio-spatial practices (Davoudi, 2018).
Sociotechnical imaginary Performance, visibility and instrumentalism (Jasanoff, 2015). It is about
science and technology in producing and performing future visions.
Combining the gap and imaginaries: transformative imagination
But combining the literature on the gap between education and practice and the discussed imaginaries, there is a need for a transformative characteristic of imagination. Davoudi states that ''for it to be transformative it needs to transcend the boundaries of the imaginary in which it operates'' (Davoudi, 2018, p. 105). For this research, the literature is too fragmented on the discussed imaginaries to say something about a gap. What I think is needed, is a way to imagine and integrate the process of going from planning education to practice, a transformative imagination 'to transcend the boundaries of the imaginary'. Although the theories on social, spatial and sociotechnical imaginaries are useful for understanding certain aspects of the gap, a translation needs to be made between the imaginaries. According to Fox-Rogers and Murphy (2016), the gap between theory and practice only exists because normative ideals are not translated to the planning practice. ''Making sense of the translation between theory and practice is an attempt to understand the dilemmas associated with the conflicts in implicit and explicit thought processes [...], to understand the dilemmas associated with an individual's thought processes'' (in Clifford & Tewdwr-Jones, 2014, p. 189). Transformative imagination is about the individual and collective capacities to support change.
''Planners possess personal thoughts, knowledge and facts before entering into the translation process; they possess both implicit and explicit thinking and learning. Implicit thinking stems from beliefs and values derived from life and education. Explicit thinking stems from reaction to influences while one is making sense of the implicit. Divorcing the explicit thoughts from the implicit cognition during the translation of theory to practice is a theorising process in itself (Underwood, 1996). Different planners can react very differently within the process of translation from implicit thinking to explicit thinking and action, according to how 'passive', 'principled', 'vulnerable' or 'strategic' they are'' (Clifford & Tewdwr-Jones, 2014, p. 189)
Transformative imagination can contribute to see the reality other than it is (in Davoudi, 2018; Yusoff & Gabruys, 2011). But what is needed, is the capability to transform the world through imagination. ''This means acting simultaneously in and on the real in order to open new horizons of meaning and new order of things'' (Davoudi, 2018, p. 105). In this way, imaginaries can be governed and individuals are the actors that make the transformation possible. The institution of new imaginaries, to imagine a new social reality, is not just a process of thoughts (or theories) conditioning practice. ''Practice inflects theory, changes it, and ideas only become powerful when 'wrapped up in certain practices, even if these are only discursive practices'' (in Dobbernack, 2010, p. 13; Taylor, 2004). To make the translation from education to practice, or from theory to practice, it is about consciously transforming imaginaries.
3
Methodology
This chapter will illustrate and elaborate on the research design and methods that are used to address, understand and analyse the link between education and practice within the theoretical framework of imaginaries. First, the focus is on the research strategy and design, by discussing the methodological framework, the research questions and the context of the data. Second, this chapter will elaborate on the research and analytical methods to conduct the empirical data.
Research strategy and design
The aim of this study is to get insight in the different imaginaries on the gap between the planning education and practice as imagined by planning educators and practitioners. How do the universities in the Netherlands address the dynamic field of planning? Is there a specific Dutch planning identity? And how do these academic planning programs ''balance the tension between the university context and the world of the professional planner, and between theory and practice'' (Ozawa & Seltzer, 1999 p. 257). The research applies a hermeneutic approach and a qualitative research strategy, grounded in theory. A hermeneuntic approach means to bring understanding. ''[It] has the goal of understanding how the world is constructed by looking at subjective interpretations of the world by various actors (in Djurasovic, 2016, p. 6; Smith, 1998; Yates, 2004). The research is framed within the theories on 'imaginaries', which are about subjective interpretations, to understand the different views on planning practice and planning education. From the previous chapter, it is argued that social, spatial and sociotechnical imaginaries can offer useful perspectives to help to understand the link between education and practice. Imaginaries are circulated through language, images and texts, and provide insight in background understandings, materiality and future visions. The qualitative research strategy is used to study these imaginaries. It values the subjective experience of the world and tries to understand the social context (Yates, 2004). A qualitative research will acquire deeper understanding of the personal interpretations on education and practice and the relationship among them. The data were collected through semi-structured interviews and an extensive collection of literature and documents. The research will theoretically contribute to the field of planning, with understandings of the field of sociology and psychology.
The main concepts that can be identified in this study are: planning education, planning practice and imaginaries. The conceptual framework below shows how these concepts and their meanings are believed to relate. The research starts from the idea that there is a gap between planning education and planning practice. To study this, the focus is put on
the educator and practitioner understanding of this gap. ''Pursuing a more explicit interactive relationship between practitioners and educators could enhance our understanding of the interaction of theory and practice, and their interdependent development'' (Ozawa & Seltzer, 1999, p. 265). Through the theoretical framework on imaginaries, both the understandings of the educators and practitioners are investigated. Therefore, this research will facilitate a two-way dialogue between academicians and practitioners.
Figure 1: Conceptual framework, source: author
The focus of the study is established in the following research question: 'How do contemporary imaginaries of planning educators and practitioners define the gap between planning education and practice?' The sub questions contribute to the perspective of planning education and practice:
1. What are the different profiles of the academic planning programs in the Netherlands with regard to linking education and practice?
2. How do planning educators see the gap between planning education and practice? 3. How do planning practitioners reflect on the link between planning education and
practice? Do they see a gap?
Research and analytical methods
In the beginning of the research, interviews were held with planning practitioners and interviewees were selected through purposive sampling (Bryman, 2012). The interviewees were planning practitioners at urban design firms, municipalities, and the national government in order to understand the Dutch planning practice, the focus of the planners' daily practices and the tools and the tools and skills that require to do actual planning in the Netherlands. The focus is on the public sector planner, because, as is argued by Clifford and Tewdwr-Jones (2014), ''while there are increasing numbers of private sector planners, it is through these officers that the planning system (which continues to exist in its current form because of statute and government policy guidance [...]) is enacted'' (Clifford & Tewdwr-Jones, 2014, p. xii). These interviewees were purposively selected because the planners had to be graduated in planning education to say something about a match or mismatch between their planning education and practice. Data from these interviews contribute to answer sub question 3 ('How do planning practitioners reflect on the link between planning education and practice? Do they see a gap?').
Two pilot interviews were held that focused on the planning education. 'Planner' in the Netherlands is not a protected title and so there is no specific degree when people want to practice planning (Korthals Altes & Taşan-Kok, 2018). In the Netherlands, there are two educational levels at which planning is taught: at the HBO (higher professional education) and the WO (scientific education). In order to make a distinction between these two levels and to see which of them would be more suitable for this research, two pilot interviews were held. Also through purposive sampling, the interviewees were selected (Bryman, 2012). The first interview was with an emeritus professor in planning at the University of Amsterdam (interviewee 1) and the second with a planning teacher at the HBO level from the University of Applied Sciences in Rotterdam. The most obvious distinction between the two educational levels is the role of theory and knowledge in the program. The HBO planning programs teach their students 'how to do planning' and the WO planning programs are aimed at doing academic research and develop analytical skills. The role of knowledge and the use of theory is important to this study, and because the theory of this research is framed around imaginaries and the translation from knowledge to action, theory to practice and education to practice, only the academic programs in the Netherlands are taken into account.
To be able to answer sub question 1 ('What are the different profiles of the academic planning programs in the Netherlands with regard to linking education and practice?), insight is needed in the different planning programs at academic level in the Netherlands and how these programs with regard to linking education and practice are framed. Six universities in the Netherlands teach within the planning discipline. In the table below, the universities and their planning programs (bachelor and master) are outlined.
University Bachelor Master
University of Amsterdam Human Geography and Planning (in
Dutch)
Urban and Regional Planning
University of Groningen Spatial Planning and Design (in
English)
Environment and Infrastructure Planning
Socio-spatial Planning
Radboud University Geography, Planning and
Environment (in Dutch)
Spatial Planning
Utrecht University Human Geography and Planning (in
Dutch)
Spatial Planning
Delft University of Technology
Building Sciences (in Dutch) Architecture, Urbanism and Building
Sciences (Track: Urbanism) Wageningen University &
Research
Landscape Architecture and Planning (in Dutch)
Landscape Architecture and Planning
Table 3: Overview Dutch planning programs, source: website universities
To get an objective overview of what these programs are about and to understand the curriculum, the recent visitations of these programs are studied. The NVAO (Nederlands- Vlaamse Accreditatieorganisatie) is a Dutch-Flemish accreditation organisation that was established as an interdependent organization by the Dutch and Flemish government to give and expert and objective opinion on the quality of higher education. The main tasks are assessing and guaranteeing the level and quality of the education. The latest documentation on the planning programs is used for this research, as showed below. Additional information on courses and the framing of the programs is retrieved from the university websites.
University Visitation of programs and year of publication
University of Amsterdam Bachelor and master programs (2013)
University of Groningen Bachelor and master programs (2014)
Radboud University Bachelor and master programs (2014)
Utrecht University Bachelor and master programs (2014)
Delft University of Technology Bachelor and master programs (2012)
Wageningen University & Research Bachelor and master programs (2012)
To answer sub question 2 ('How do planning educators see the gap between planning education and practice?'), interviews were held with planning educators from the six universities in the Netherlands. These interviews were semi-structured and were focused on data about their imaginaries on their own planning program and the link with the planning practice.
Questions for planning educators
Do you think there is a gap between planning education and planning practice? What are the themes that you teach, that are the focus of the program?
How are these themes linked to reality?
To what extend is the real experience of planning integrated in the program? What are you missing in the planning program?
What are you concerned about within the planning discipline? How do you reflect this in your teachings?
Do you have a role-model, a planning hero?
Table 5: Questions semi-structured interview planning educators, source: author
All the interviews with the planning practitioners and planning educators had been recorded and transcribed and the interviewees are named anonymously in this study. A list of the interviewees is included in the appendix. All of the interviews, except for two, were held in Dutch. The other two were held in English. Therefore, citations that have been used throughout this study from Dutch speaking interviewees have been translated.
Through qualitative content analysis and discourse analysis, the underlying themes in the profiles of the studies (from the NVAO documents) and data from the interviews have been analysed. Qualitative content analysis has been applied on the data from the NVAO visitation documents and the websites on the profiles of the planning programs. Through this analysis, there is an emphasis on categories in the documents for understanding the meaning of the context. Discourse analysis is about discourses that represent versions of reality that are accomplished through language. Imaginaries can be constituted through discourses and therefore become representational images (Watkins, 2015). Discourse can play a part in collective imagining on thinking and acting on the gap between planning education and practice. Talk and language are forms of discourses which can contribute to this understanding. Therefore, discourse analysis has been applied to analyse the interviews with planning educators and practitioners to see how they think (and act) on this gap.
4
Planning in the Netherlands
To understand the relation between planning education and practice in the Netherlands, the Dutch context of planning has to be examined. In this chapter, the discourses on Dutch planning (both practice and education) are discussed in order to understand the development of planning in the Netherlands and to place the findings of the research (in chapter 5) in context.
The Housing Act from 1901 marks the beginning of the Dutch planning practice. In this act, the national government compiled requirements for public housing. The local governments were designated as the first executives and it was about providing good living conditions for everyone. Providing these conditions, was about bringing together ''politicians and experts, including economists, lawyers and municipal engineers'' (Faludi & van der Valk, 1994, p. 46). After a legislative amendment in 1921, the destination of other grounds also had to be adjusted, which resulted in the current format of the zoning plans. The profession of planning, consisted of engineers educated at the university of Delft who were concerned with transport, housing and service provision, and architects, who saw planning as an art. ''They demanded more attention to esthetics, monumental design and eminity, subordinating the solution to social problems to three-dimensional form. The institution and vision of the master designer were crucial. Whether and how to use research findings, or indeed any other information, was for him to decide'' (idem, p. 47). For example, architects like Berlage at the time, are considered to have contributed greatly to the Dutch heritage because of its designs. Also other professions were concerned with planning, for example the ''housing and sanitary reformers'' (idem).
Planning in the Netherlands is defined as 'planologie'. This term was first used by the Dutch planner Joël Meijer de Casseres in 1929 (De Klerk & Kreukels, 2015). According to De Casseres, 'planologie' means connecting science and design because he believed that research should be the foundation of any plan, in which future social developments are translated into a spatial design. This had to extend across all scale levels: from local to national. The idea of 'survey-before-plan' was an important focus of the time and contributed to the discipline of planning. Because of the Housing Act from 1901, housing statistics for example had to be collected in order to make plans on providing good living conditions.
The time from 1930 until 1970 can be described as a rational planning period in the Netherlands (De Klerk & Kreukels, 2015). The idea of rational planning is that ''planners could deduce alternatives from agreed goals and recommend the best course of action'' (Faludi & van der Valk, 1994, p. 120). Because of the reconstruction after the World War II, the focus of planning was about remediation, reconstruction, urban expansion and regional and national
plans (De Klerk & Kreukels, 2015). The societal situation in the Netherlands after the war was concerned with for example damaged homes, compounded by population growth, and it were economically harsh times. In the planning discipline, there was an involvement of geographers, ''to fully understand the situation at hand'' (idem, p. 84). Because of the Housing Act, municipalities were given power, but their practices were first to be approved by the provincial level. There was a realisation that municipal plans could be best coordinated by making a plan that combined the regions on a higher scale. A Government Service for the National Plan was established in 1941 and was preparing and researching a national plan. The post-war period can be seen as a period of reconstruction but also for the planning discipline to define itself in the Netherlands. The housing shortage was of great concern and the Dutch welfare state began to emerge, ''including its over-centralized decision-making'' (idem, p. 90). The foundations of the Dutch 'planning doctrine', as Faludi and van der Valk argue, were laid in this period. They state that the Dutch planning is about ''rule and order'' (Faludi & van der Valk, 1994). Physical contribution to the Netherlands, such as the Randstad and the Green Heart, were established.
''If there is a country where there is a need for well-ordered development, for an effort on the part of the authorities to arrive at a national distribution of housing and employment over the whole jurisdiction, for a system of railways, roads, canals and air traffic which is altogether economically rational, for careful preservation of recreation areas and of natural beauty, then it is the Netherlands'' (Bakker Schut, 1937; in Faludi & van der Valk, 1994, p. 64).
In 1965, the first law regarding planning came into force in the Netherlands. The Housing Act from 1901 was revised, together with a completely new Physical Planning Act. ''The process took decades because it was very difficult to reach a consensus about the role of the different layers of government in relation to each other and about the instruments of spatial planning in relation to the tasks and jurisdictions of policy sectors'' (Zonneveld & Evers, 2014, p. 64). With this act, planning was not anymore linked to only housing. By this time, the Government Service for the National Plan was replaced by the National Physical Planning Agency (Rijksplanologische Dienst). This agency, that consisted of planners, urbanist, landscape architects and lawyers, provided spatial plans for the Netherlands and was about top-down and rational planning. Planning was seen as a science: ''It would start with goals and proceed to generating alternatives, evaluating them, choosing solutions, and implementing them. The public's role would be limited to advising on values and preferences'' (Innes & Booher, 2015, p. 197). The reports that the agency produced, were aimed at societal changes that asked for spatial plans. The Second Report was for example a structural plan for the Netherlands in 2000 with the main focus on 'concentrated deconcentration' as a social spatial concept to
implement the principles of equitable distribution and accessibility of facilities (De Klerk & Kreukels, 2015).
In the period until 1970, the first chairs in planning (or planology) were appointed: Willem Steigenga in Amsterdam in 1962 and Gerrit Wisskink in Nijmegen in 1963. Other chair appointments in the integration of planning and social sciences followed, which resulted in a commission to streamline developments in the academics of planning. ''For the research oriented courses, the commission recommended a two-and-a-half year programme after an intermediate examination in one out of a number of social-sciences disciplines, more or less the British graduate or American masters model'' (Faludi & van der Valk, 1994, p. 120). In these models, the approach towards the planner was by the notion of Perloff (1957): a 'generalist with a specialty' (in Taşan-Kok et al., 2018, p. 16). In Nijmegen and Amsterdam, the first planology academic programs were established and other universities implemented planning as part of other degree programmes.
What was important in the period from 1970 until 1990, was the demand for democratisation which required independent attention for the planning process, the decision-making and implementation. Implementation of planning had to be more flexible, due to unexpected changes in society, for example declining birth rates, the first oil crisis of 1973 and the raising awareness for the environment. 'Uncertainty' was subject to planning: how to deal with it? ''The methods and approaches of planning in the seventies were ambitious'' (Faludi & van der Valk, 1994, p. 144). Organizing the process of planning became leading, with influences of public participation and democracy of decision-making: from top-down to bottom-up.
In this time, planning education transformed into an undergraduate model (Faludi & van der Valk, 1994). It is argued by Faludi (1978), a lecturer at the Delft University of Technology at the time, that ''undergraduate planning might shed its specific links with town planning and attempt to educate men and women for practical effectiveness in a great many fields, an effectiveness which requires forethought, judgement and determination in seeing projects through'' (p. 3). Disciplines such as economics, political science, sociology and geography have impacted the planning education. This is parallel to the societal dynamics, in which the process of decision-making became important and insights from other disciplines were necessary to understand this.
From the 1990's onward, planning in the Netherlands became highly institutionalised and consensus-driven (De Klerk & Kreukels, 2015; Özdemir & Taşan-Kok, 2017). Public participation processes in spatial developments have been institutionalised in the planning process and the liberalisation of the Dutch politics resulted in a decrease in financial support in for example housing. Many other sectors have gained access to the planning process, because public participation needed to be taken into account in the plans. ''For example, a planning proposal may have implications for airborne particulates, archaeological research, 'water tests' to diagnose water-management issues, natural habitats, and rare species of
wildlife'' (Roodbol-Mekkes et al., 2012, p. 382). In this time, parties such as investors, project developers and constructors acquired a large position in the Dutch spatial planning. ''In many cases market finance has replaced government funding. Whereas in the past, development was simply matter of hierarchical implementation, programmes are now increasingly being dominated by the market'' (idem, p. 383). This also meant that those parties were developing knowledge on spatial issues and that the direct influence of the government has weakened. ''Large-scale urban developments and public-private partnerships thrived while the sectors of social and affordable housing went into decline'' (Özdemir & Taşan-Kok, 2017, p. 7). The current practices of planners are most of all shaped by prevailing political-economic conditions, such as neoliberalism which is about market-oriented dynamics (Taşan-Kok & Oranje, 2018). The consensus-driven approach required a communication role for planners. Not only to convince others with the best spatial plans, but also to negotiate with parties that had a lot of power and influence. The planner was given a role of process manager and facilitator.
Cherry (1974) argues that ''[…] the way in which the planner is trained and educated is bound up with the perceived concepts of planning and the expected role of the planner is society'' (in Taşan-Kok et al., 2018, p. 16). The scientific theories and planning education focused on the consensus-driven and concepts developed such as collaborative planning. The planning system was seen as an institutionalised force as a complex of goals, norms and an organisation with formal rules and practices (Kreukels, 1979). There is a relationship between developments in society and the management of spatial developments. Planners should function as the sensors of society. This means that planning is a representation of the forces in society itself (Kreukels, 1979, p. 68). These forces have to be understood in education as well and planning education is therefore influenced by sociology, economics, political sciences, human geography, anthropology, etc.
