Why the Rational Paradigm Persists — The Resistance of Professional Education and Practice to Alternative Forms of Planning

TLDR

For three decades, planners have highlighted shortcomings of the traditional rational planning model, yet rationality remains entrenched in education and practice. The paper contends that entrenched rational assumptions arise from institutional and historical roots, and that reform requires new teaching methods and planners’ behavioral shifts. The essay surveys promising alternative planning approaches that address the rational paradigm’s limitations or replace it with other models. Practitioners can only adopt alternative knowledge if they recognize their rational assumptions and embrace a new planning concept, and academics must effectively demonstrate alternatives for planners to adopt them.

Abstract

For thirty years planners and critics of planning alike have confronted inadequacies in the traditional model of comprehensive rational planning. Despite this intellectual acknowledgement of the need for a different paradigm, the underlying characteristics of rationality still pervade planning education and practice. This paper argues that the more insidious features derive from the broader institutional context and deeper historical roots of the field. Consequently, practitioners cannot incorporate alternative forms of knowledge in planning unless they both become conscious of how they have accepted classic rational assumptions and are willing to adopt a new concept of planning. The essay briefly reviews several promising approaches to planning that cope with the implications of the rational paradigm and/or substitute other models. However, academics cannot expect practicing planners to adopt alternative approaches unless they demonstrate them effectively. To do so, they need to develop new teaching approaches in planning schools and to alter their own behavior so as to encourage new roles rather than simply reinforcing existing ones.