IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/cpprxx/v32y2017i5p508-523.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Collaboration with Caveats: Research–Practice Exchange in Planning

Author

Listed:
  • Joe Hurley
  • Elizabeth Jean Taylor
  • Kath Phelan

Abstract

Researcher and practitioner collaboration in urban planning is both critical to good outcomes and problematic to achieve in reality. Collaboration has the potential for new partnerships, better research problem definition, improved research design and greater impact on practice and policy. However, politics, stakeholder agendas and funding bodies bring pressures and constraints, for which research professionals require a broader set of skills to manage. We examine researcher–practitioner collaboration as part of an action research project on urban greening in Australia. Focusing on a stakeholder engagement workshop, we examine the mechanisms used to overcome barriers to research-practice exchange. We find overt consideration of common barriers to access and use of research when planning collaboration exercises can help facilitate more productive engagement, creating spaces for mutual understanding and generating shared objectives. However, we also find that efforts at collaboration challenge traditional research practices, involve tensions and caveats, and require a different mode of researcher engagement.

Suggested Citation

  • Joe Hurley & Elizabeth Jean Taylor & Kath Phelan, 2017. "Collaboration with Caveats: Research–Practice Exchange in Planning," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(5), pages 508-523, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:cpprxx:v:32:y:2017:i:5:p:508-523
    DOI: 10.1080/02697459.2017.1378971
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/02697459.2017.1378971
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/02697459.2017.1378971?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:cpprxx:v:32:y:2017:i:5:p:508-523. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/cppr20 .

    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.