IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v33y2010i2p138-146.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using face validity to recognize empirical community observations

Author

Listed:
  • Gaber, John
  • Gaber, Sharon L.

Abstract

There is a growing interest among international planning scholars to explore community participation in the plan making process from a qualitative research approach. In this paper the research assessment tool "face validity" is discussed as one way to help planners decipher when the community is sharing empirically grounded observations that can advance the applicability of the plan making process. Face validity provides a common sense assessment of research conclusions. It allows the assessor to look at an entire research project and ask: "on the face of things, does this research make sense?" With planners listening to citizen comments with an ear for face validity observations, holds open the opportunity for government to empirically learn from the community to see if they "got it right." And if not, to chart out a course on how they can get it right.

Suggested Citation

  • Gaber, John & Gaber, Sharon L., 2010. "Using face validity to recognize empirical community observations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 138-146, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:33:y:2010:i:2:p:138-146
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149-7189(09)00080-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen Turner, 1979. "The concept of face validity," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 85-90, February.
    2. John Gaber & Sharon Gaber, 2002. "Using Focus and NomiNal Group Techniques for a Better Understanding of the Transit Disadvantaged Needs," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 103-120, January.
    3. John F. Forester, 1999. "The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262561220, December.
    4. Innes, Judith E. & Gruber, Judith, 2005. "Planning Styles in Conflict: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt6pf9k6sk, University of California Transportation Center.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ghavami, Seyed Morsal & Taleai, Mohammad & Arentze, Theo, 2022. "An intelligent web-based spatial group decision support system to investigate the role of the opponents’ modeling in urban land use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2017. "Towards a pragmatic research agenda for the PSS domain," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 77-83.
    2. E. Melanie DuPuis & Brian J. Gareau, 2008. "Neoliberal Knowledge: The Decline of Technocracy and the Weakening of the Montreal Protocol," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1212-1229, December.
    3. Tornberg, Patrik & Odhage, John, 2018. "Making transport planning more collaborative? The case of Strategic Choice of Measures in Swedish transport planning," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 416-429.
    4. Makena Coffman & Karen Umemoto, 2010. "The triple-bottom-line: framing of trade-offs in sustainability planning practice," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 12(5), pages 597-610, October.
    5. Primmer, Eeva & Kyllonen, Simo, 2006. "Goals for public participation implied by sustainable development, and the preparatory process of the Finnish National Forest Programme," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(8), pages 838-853, November.
    6. Liz Barry, 2022. "Community science and the design of climate governance," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 171(3), pages 1-17, April.
    7. Crystal Legacy & Ryan van den Nouwelant, 2015. "Negotiating Strategic Planning's Transitional Spaces: The Case of ‘Guerrilla Governance’ in Infrastructure Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(1), pages 209-226, January.
    8. Peter Dithan Ntale & Jude Ssempebwa & Badiru Musisi & Genza Gyaviira Musoke & Kimoga Joseph & C. B. Mugimu & Ngoma Muhammed & Joseph Ntayi, 2020. "Gaps in the structuring of organizations in the graduate employment context in Uganda," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    9. repec:ags:ijag24:345027 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Patricia Molina Costa, 2014. "From plan to reality: Implementing a community vision in Jackson Square, Boston," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 293-310, September.
    11. Karner, Alex & Niemeier, Deb, 2013. "Civil rights guidance and equity analysis methods for regional transportation plans: a critical review of literature and practice," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 126-134.
    12. Ratka ÄŒolić & Ä orÄ‘e Milić & Jasna Petrić & NataÅ¡a ÄŒolić, 2022. "Institutional capacity development within the national urban policy formation process – Participants’ views," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 40(1), pages 69-89, February.
    13. Marco Te Brömmelstroet & Luca Bertolini, 2010. "Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 85-104, January.
    14. Jongwng Ju & Jaecheol Kim, 2023. "Applying the Delphi Approach to Incorporate Voiceless Stakeholders in Community Planning," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    15. Holguín-Veras, José & Amaya Leal, Johanna & Seruya, Barbara B., 2017. "Urban freight policymaking: The role of qualitative and quantitative research," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 75-85.
    16. Richard Apatewen Azerigyik & Michael Poku-Boansi & Justice Kuffour Owusu-Ansah, 2024. "Herders’ Haven or Farmers’ Foe? Exploring Multi-Stakeholder Perspectives on Grazing Reserves and Transhumance Corridors," World, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-24, July.
    17. Peter Wilshusen, 2009. "Social process as everyday practice: the micro politics of community-based conservation and development in southeastern Mexico," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(2), pages 137-162, May.
    18. David Brain, 2005. "From Good Neighborhoods to Sustainable Cities: Social Science and the Social Agenda of the New Urbanism," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 28(2), pages 217-238, April.
    19. Mickey Lauria & Mellone Long, 2017. "Planning Experience and Planners’ Ethics," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 83(2), pages 202-220, April.
    20. Kenneth M. Reardon, 2005. "Empowerment planning in East St. Louis, Illinois," City, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 85-100, April.
    21. Malene Freudendal-Pedersen & Sven Kesselring, 2016. "Mobilities, Futures & the City: repositioning discourses – changing perspectives – rethinking policies," Mobilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 575-586, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:33:y:2010:i:2:p:138-146. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.