Multidisciplinary

Planning Education,
Theory and Practice,
Is There a Gap?
Joseph Gagie - 2865630
Abstract
Planning entails decision-making that
will have significant effects on the built,
natural,
social
and
economic
environments while accommodating a
variety of scenarios. As a result,
planning education and theory utilises a
multidisciplinary approach drawing
from a number of subjects in order to
assist students and trainee planners to
think clearly and make appropriate
decisions. However, planning theory is
often criticised due to a resulting theory
practice gap where students or trainee
planners do not possess a complete
knowledge to begin practicing. Drawing
on my experiences and research I
conclude this gap is marginal and is no
different than an employee transitioning
to a new role. The knowledge and
thought process is engrained in

graduates minds but have yet been

required to make the connections
contributing to the belief in the theory
practice gap.
Introduction
A practicing planner involves achieving
the best possible outcomes when
working towards an uncertain future
(March 2010 p.108).
Therefore,
planning must ensure all steps are
taken and all avenues explored as the
decisions will ripple through the built,
natural,
social
and
economic
environments. In response to this,
planners are subject to an intense
education curriculum whereby the
theories relating to planning are
conveyed. However, there is a belief a
gap exists between what student
planners are being taught as theory and
what practicing in the real world is truly
like.
1|Joseph G agie
2865630

While completing my education and

practicing as a town planner at two local
governments I have experienced the
transition between a student and
professional. Through my experiences I
argue
that
the
multidisciplinary
education received has bridged the gap
for the most part as the knowledge is
buried within the students minds.
Planning Theory
March (2008 p. `109) and Healey (1992
p. 143) explain, urban planners must
make decisions that will bring about a
positive
change,
this
involved
accounting for future impacts, trends,
circumstances and political objectives
while endorsing social justice and
sustainability. In order to achieve this,
planners are subject to education
theory that is ever evolving due to new
research and changing political
environment (March 2010 p. 109;).
Additionally planning theory differs from
other scientific subjects as the contents
of planning theory students are taught
cannot be applied to all situations
(Alexander 2010 p. 103). Moreover,
due to the nature of planning and the
repercussions decisions will have
consequences through the social,
economic and environmental (both built
and
natural)
environments,
subsequently planners must be well
equipped with an understanding of
other fields and how they relate to one
another.
Multidisciplinary Education
In response to this, planning education
and planning theory involves a
multidisciplinary
method
whereby

students undertake studies ranging

from a number of differing subjects and
applications. This approach provides
students
with
a
technical
understanding, bridging ideas with
actions in addition to generating a
comprehensive
understanding
of
matters (Mateo-Babiano & Burke 2013;
Alexader
2010).
Multidisciplinary
education provides planning students
with the fundamental necessities
required to practice (Mateo-Babiano &
Burke 2013; Alexader 2010). Some of
these include project management,
public policy, conflict resolution,
economics
and
urban
and
environmental planning. Bosman &
Dedekortut-Howes (2014 p. 20) state
environmental planning courses poses
particular challenges in planning
curricula as it requires great diversity of
skills and knowledge, however I argue
this to be true of all planning subjects
due to the repercussions decisions
have through environs and associated
uncertainty,
particularly
social
responses from policy decisions.
Griffith University has implemented
multidisciplinary education within a
bachelors degree in urban and
environmental planning. The degree
incorporates a number of study areas
through the introduction of studio
subjects where students are tasked
with decision making, collaboration,
summarising and producing plans,
policies or developments that will
resolve a set criteria (Bosman &
Dedekortut-Howes 2014 p. 31). This
criteria may be referring to a significant
environmental problem, specific need
for a town, city or region or significant
development. For example, some of the
2|Joseph G agie
2865630

criteria I have contributed to during my

time at Griffith University include;
significant Coal Seam Gas Projects, the
Commonwealth
Games
Village
precinct,
Southport
Priority
Development Area and a regional plan
for South East Queensland. These
focusses required information relating
to a number of differing subjects in
order to deliver a solution or outcome
that would be the best possible result.
Moreover, these classes utilised
reflective
learning
encouraging
students to learn other students and
themselves (Feekery 2014 p.16). This
approach additionally encourages
connections to be made between
subjects thus transforming thinking by
allowing connection between subjects
to
be
made
and
anticipating
consequences from decisions (Feekery
2014 p.3).
Theory Practice Gap
Though this approach to planning
education is seen as thorough, it is not
without criticism, most notable it is
argued a gap exists between what
planners are taught and how planners
practice, often referred to as the theory
practice gap. As with all education,
planning theory is normative as a
curriculum determines the principles of
practice to be conveyed (Alexader 1997
p. 3; Tewdwr-Jones & Allmendinge
1997 p. 803). However, there is an
inconsistency between what trainee
planners are being taught at university
(ethically right method) and how the
real world works (Alexader 1997 p. 3;
Alexander 2010 p. 99-100; TewdwrJones & Allmendinge 1997 p. 803;
Mateo-Babiano & Burke 2013). The

normative theory has a wide application

in
education
yet
a
practicing
development
assessment
officer
experiences a number of situational
scenarios in which this theory cannot be
applied. Similarly, positive theory
(perfect models) are utilised to explain
processes to trainee planners in order
to achieve sound understanding, yet
these processes are not perfect in the
real world (Alexander 1997 p.3;
Alexander 2010 p. 99-100; MateoBabiano & Burke 2013 p.3). Furthering
the gap is the notion that planners are
taught as decision makers and
technical advisors but when practicing,
planners must also be skilled
communication facilitators (Ozawa &
Seltzer 1999 p.259-260). It can be
concluded a gap exists between the
theory planning students are being
taught
and
practicing
planners
undertake. I argue the theory practice
gap is not as great and is easily
bridged as trainee planners need only
to adjust to practicing.

Does The Theory Practice Gap

Exist?
Alexander (2010), introduces the
ideology of enlightenment through
incorporating
a
multidisciplinary
education in which knowledge is
diffused, elaborated and transmitted in
the field of planning resulting in good
planning practice. Dimitrova (2013
p.122) explains the multidisciplinary
education
builds
on
students
knowledge and encourages intellectual
curiosity,
building
capacity
for
interdisciplinary
dialogue
and
3|Joseph G agie
2865630

motivation for practical action and

works
particularly
well
for
environmental planning due to the
required diversity of information. While
studying at Griffith University one of the
first subjects I completed was
Introduction to Environmental Planning,
this subject laid the foundations of the
degree emphasising innovations in
sustainability. From this point on all of
the assignments completed included
environmental sustainability within the
designs. This mindset was carried over
into practice through my practicum,
when assessing developments I would
often look down upon application giving
no regard the sustainability or using
environmentally friendly materials.
Through the multidisciplinary ideal,
trainee planners are thought to think
effectively leading to a solution to the
theory practice gap (Alexander 2010 p.
103-104).

after some time I realised I already

possessed the knowledge needed but
had never made connections between
the disciplines before. Times existed in
which I did feel there may indeed be a
theory practice gap. As stated above,
Ozawa and Seltzer (1999 p.259-260)
explain planners are not taught to
become communication facilitators.
The importance of this skill became
apparent when communicating with
applicants, the public, Councillors and
other government departments. Yet
communication skills and conduct may
be a by-product resulting from the
numerous reports, assignments and
presentations completed at university.
Shepherd & Cosgrif (1998 p.350)
explain by introducing students to
problems they are able to learn how
think effectively and solve problems
helping student make the transition to
the real world.

During my practicum experience I

began to understand that the theory
practice gap may be an illusion as many
authors
agree
(Poulton
1991;
Alexander 2010; Shapard & Cosgrif
1998; Inness 1995). During education
trainee planners are taught theory
relating to a subject or principal which
thereafter a complete understanding is
formulated. It is not until trainee
planners begin practicing and are
placed
into
scenarios
requiring
information from a combination of
disciplines and imperfect models that
these bridges begin to formulate
(Inness 1995, Alexadander 2010). For
example,
during
my
practicum
experience I initially believed I had little
knowledge
when
relating
to
development assessment, however,

Dawkins (2016) undertook a study

spanning several years in order to
identify if what students are being
taught are being utilized by practicing
graduate planners. The study finds the
majority of the skills and theory
incorporated into education is widely
applied to practice and is considered
highly useful, however, it was noted
little theory relating to planning history
is provided within the education system
(Dawkins 1016 p. 10-11). These
findings indicate the theory practice gap
is marginal as one must always have a
brief period in order to adjust to a new
role.

4|Joseph G agie
2865630

Conclusion
Student and trainee planners complete
a comprehensive education where the
concepts of planning theory are
conveyed. The incorporation of
multidisciplinary
education
and
reflective learning allows student think
beyond the box and anticipate the
repercussions across a variety of
environments and different scenarios. It
can be concluded that this approach is
well suited to the planning professions
education. However some argue it
leaves a gap between theory and
practice.
Through my experience I have
concluded the theory practice gap is
mostly an illusion and is no greater than
anyone transitioning to a new role.
Students and trainee planners have
been
trained
to
think
three
dimensionally drawing on a range of
principals, ideals and disciplines.
However,
when
beginning
a
professional career a graduate has not
had to make these connections
practicing in the real world requires.
Therefore a short adjustment period
exists, but once the planner is familiar
with this mindset the gap is
extinguished.

5|Joseph G agie
2865630

References
Alexander, E. 1997, A mile or a millimeter? Measuring the planning
theory practice gap, Environment and Planning B: Planning and
Design, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 3-6. Accessed 29/3/2016, available: <
https://ideas.repec.org/a/pio/envirb/v24y1997i1p3-6.html>
Alexander, E. 2010, 'Introduction: Does planning theory affect practice, and if so
how?', Planning theory, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 99-107, accessed 4/4.2016,
available: <http://plt.sagepub.com/content/9/2/99.short>
Bosman, C. & Dedekortut-Howes, A. 2014, Environmental Planning Education and
the possibilities for studio pedagogy, Australia and New Zealand Association
of Planning Schools 2014 Conference, Massey University Palmerston North,
New Zealand 3-5 October, accessed 29/04.2015, available:
<http://anzaps.net/admin/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/2014-ANZAPSConference-Proceedings.pdf#page=24>
Dawkins, C. 2016, Preparing planners: the role of graduate planning education,
Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 1-13, accessed
8/04/2015, available:
<http://jpe.sagepub.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/content/early/2016/02/11/0
739456X15627193.full.pdf+html>
Dimitrova, E. 2013, The sustainable development concept in urban planning
education: lessons learned on a Bulgarian path, Journal of Cleaner
Production, vol. 62, pp. 120 127, accessed 29/03/2015, available:
<http://ac.els-cdn.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/S0959652613004022/1s2.0-S0959652613004022-main.pdf?_tid=61f27798-fabe-11e5-a17500000aab0f6b&acdnat=1459813309_a94b134ed54201cc18edea2e4b24717a
>
Feekley, A. 2014, Reflection, values, and learning in a New Zealand planning
degree, Australia and New Zealand Association of Planning Schools 2014
Conference, Massey University Palmerston North, New Zealand 3-5 October,
accessed 29/04.2015, available: <http://anzaps.net/admin/wpcontent/uploads/2014/01/2014-ANZAPS-ConferenceProceedings.pdf#page=24>
Healey, P. 1992, Planning through debate: the communicative turn in planning
theory, Town Planning Review, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 143 - 163, accessed
2/4/2016, available:
<http://online.liverpooluniversitypress.co.uk/doi/abs/10.3828/tpr.63.2.422x602
303814821?journalCode=tpr>
Innes, J.E. 1995, "Planning Theory's Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action
and Interactive Practice", Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol.
6|Joseph G agie
2865630

14, no. 3, pp. 183-189, accessed 3/04/2016, available:

<http://jpe.sagepub.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/content/14/3/183>
March, A. 2010, Practicing theory: when theory affects urban planning, Planning
Theory, vol. 9, no. 2, accessed 2/4/2016, available:
<http://plt.sagepub.com/content/9/2/108.abstract>
Mateo-Babiano, I. & Burke, M. 2013, Transport planning education in urban planning
schools in Australia, Australasian Transport Research Forum 2013
Proceedings, Australasian Transport Research Forum, accessed 1/4/2016,
available: <http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:313206>
Ozawa, C. & Seltzer, E. 1999, Taking our bearings: mapping a relationship among
planning practice, theory, and education, Journal of Planning Education and
Research, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 257-266, accessed 6/4/2016, available:
<http://jpe.sagepub.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/content/18/3/257>
Pissourios, I. 2013, Whither the planning theory-practice gap? A case study on the
relationship between urban indicators and planning theories, Theoretical and
Empirical Researches in Urban Management, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 80-88,
accessed 2/4/2016, available:
<http://search.proquest.com/docview/1448251668?pq-origsite=gscholar>
Poulton, M, 1991, The case for a positive theory of planning. Part 1: What is wrong
with planning theory?, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design,
vol. 18, no. 2, pp.225-232, accessed 2/04/2016, available:
<http://epb.sagepub.com/content/18/2/225.short>
Shepherd, A. & Cosgrif, B. 1998, problem-based learning: a bridge between
planning education and planning practice, Journal of Planning Education and
Research, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 348-357, accessed 9/04/2016, available:
<http://jpe.sagepub.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/content/17/4/348.full.pdf>
Tewdwr-Jones, M. & Allmendinger, P. 1997, Mind the gap: planning theory-practice
and the translation of knowledge into action - a comment on Alexander
(1997),Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 24, no. 6, pp.
802-806 accessed 3/04/2016, available:
<https://ideas.repec.org/a/pio/envirb/v24y1997i6p802-806.html>

7|Joseph G agie
2865630