A Critical Reflection on the Experimental Method for Planning Research: Testing the Added Value of PSS in a Controlled Environment

Marco te Br�mmelstroet

Planning Practice & Research, 2015, vol. 30, issue 2, 179-201

Abstract: For planning research to successfully generate usable mechanisms for planning practitioners more hypothesis-testing research designs are needed. Currently, the academic field seems more geared toward generating hypotheses, either by observing practice or from theoretical studies. This approach is especially common in research that generates knowledge of planning. In this paper, I map several relevant research designs that allow for such hypothesis testing and discuss their usability in planning research. Then, I particularly focus on the experimental method as a promising design for generating contextualized mechanisms for planning practice. I describe and analyze a study that aimed to develop mechanisms about the added value of knowledge technologies for the quality of planning. Two consecutive experiments are described in detail, after which the usability of the experimental method for planning research is discussed. Reflecting on these experiments indicate that the main strength of this research design is that it allows to create ideal circumstances for falsification (which is virtually impossible in planning practices. The main weakness is the ecological validity of findings, especially when the research is executed with students.

Date: 2015
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/02697459.2015.1023077 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:cpprxx:v:30:y:2015:i:2:p:179-201

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/cppr20

DOI: 10.1080/02697459.2015.1023077

Access Statistics for this article

Planning Practice & Research is currently edited by Vincent Nadin

More articles in Planning Practice & Research from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().