In the Association of European Schools of Planning (AESOP) congress last week, there was an interesting roundtable organised by the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI). You might have expected it to be a local debate about planning in the UK, but it turned out to be a more general discussion on the role of research in the context of planning practice and politics.
The event had its motivation in the observation that planning has been under attack by the neoliberal government in the UK, according to which planning represents needless and even harmful restrictions to the market economy and economic growth. In their attempt to defend planning against this accusation, the representatives of RTPI had designed a research agenda that would help them to demonstrate that planning can in fact promote economic growth. Unfortunately they had not found much help to from academic research, which has mainly concentrated on criticising neoliberalism. This is why they have started to promote and organise research that would give them suitable weapons in their 'war' against neoliberalism - the market itself cannot be beaten.
The invited members of the academic community were not so enthusiastic. In her memorable comment Simin Davoudi told the story of Alan Turing and his seemingly useless ideas, which however ended up in deciphering the German code Enigma (and thus shortening the 2nd World War) and - as if by chance - the design of the first electronic computer. The ways of science and researchers are mysterious: you never know what you get - but you need to give them leeway.
At first sight this seems like the age-old dichotomy between the Ivory Tower of academics and the down-to-earth attitude of the practitioners. However, the issue of the role and responsibility of research is worth readdressing in these turbulent times, when the university is no longer the self-evident fortress of disinterested research that it used to be. Well, perhaps it never was, if we believe Foucault, according to whom 'truth is a thing in this world'. But it is fair to say that societies are more than ever in the process of redefining the role of the university: we should form more partnerships with industry, and we should prepare our students to meet the requirements of working life rather than - though this is never explicitly said - making them critics of the established order.
Considering this context, the need for practitioners to defend their professional role is understandable, but a research agenda that is in effect positioned inside the neoliberal political framework would not only squeeze research into instrumentalism, but it would also give weapons to the opponents of professionalism. Even if we would no longer believe in the Durkheimian view of professions as moral fortresses, they are professions exactly because of their relative freedom to define their own commission. The day when doctors of medicine are no longer allowed to define health - but only politicians - we are in trouble. And the same is true of planners and the good environment.
Again referring to Davoudi, the original motivation of planning and the measure of its success was not GDP but the health and happiness of people, their access to good and affordable housing, etc. The fact these early aspirations now seem outdated or idealistic tells something of our contemporary society and politics. And this is exactly what research should address.
