Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
In 1995, Judith Innes recognized the increasing influence of a new type of planning theorist. Adverse to “armchair theorizing,” these theorists have taken a fine-grained analysis of planning practice as the basis for reconstruction of planning theory. Despite the proliferation of this theoretical project, its impact on urban planning has yet to be analyzed in a comprehensive manner. The major impetus for the research is to assess the ways that empirical research in planning practice has informed or failed to inform planning theory. Have empirical studies of planning practice resolved existing theoretical contentions? Or have they generated only more conflicting opinions and a lack of resolution of the existing debates? This article presents a meta-analysis of empirical studies in planning theory.
Lauria et al. (Fri,) studied this question.