From activist scholar to activist planner (and back again)

Abstract

In 2010 we embarked on a research programme based on two case studies that sought to better understand the implications of a planning framework that had become overly technocratic. The first case study – Greening the Rubble – centred on an organisation established after the Canterbury earthquakes to install pocket parks and other green enterprises on demolition sites in the CBD. The second case study was a Flood Working Group established to mitigate flooding in a small rural village. Both cases demanded a flexible and sensitive methodology, and a deep familiarity with the setting. Mindful of concerns about the conduct of research and the ‘deadening’ effect that orthodox research approaches visit upon that which should be most lively (Lorimer, 2005), we thought it most appropriate to adopt an iterative mix of research and analytic approaches. From different research traditions, but offering similar advice, Burns (2007) and Rappaport (2008) have developed an ‘orientation to enquiry’ which aims to make sense of a situation through experimental action or ‘activist scholarship’. Both case studies provided ample opportunity to reflect critically both on planning practice in New Zealand and on the ethical pitfalls of activist scholarship. Vis-à-vis planning practice, the case studies highlight a) the disconnect between various tiers of government and b) the distance between ‘strategists/policy makers’, ‘planners’ objectives and rules’ and ‘consenters’ application and enforcement’ of them. The vacuum and clutter created as a consequence then raise some interesting ethical – and indeed, professional - questions about the transition from activist scholar to activist planner or, rather, ‘advocate’. We argue that by celebrating ‘facts’ as somehow value neutral, technocratic planning may actually endorse and enforce a particular ideological position.