Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Planning theory is hardly relevant for E-Planning, because generic “planning” does not exist for practical purposes, except as distinct planning practices. E-Planning is such a practice, with implications for E-Planning theory, education and practice. Defining planning as “what planners do” makes planning a socially recognized practice; for such practices “planning” always has a qualifyer: urban-, environmental- or strategic planning. Meaningful discussion of planning demands contingent referents not abstract generalizations. Diverse planning practices are identifyable on several dimensions: sector, level or domain, and country. With various actors and blends of usable knowledge, planning practices contribute expertise to the co-construction of knowledge. The case for E-Planning follows the prototype of spatial planning, including tools: knowledge that E-planners contribute; practice: the E-Planner's role and social purpose; and context: E-planners' workplaces and their institutional environment. Evidence of institutionalization (including the IJEPR) confirms that E-Planning is a real planning practice, with E-Planning theory in development and awaiting integration.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Ernest R. Alexander
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
International Journal of E-Planning Research
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Ernest R. Alexander (Wed,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0f8b982badbc352afe5324 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/ijepr.2014010101
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: