Applying interdisciplinary models to design, planning, and policy-making

The difficulty of handling complex problems has spawned challenges to the traditional paradigm of technical rationality in design, planning, and policy making. One of the most frequently proposed solutions is an interdisciplinary approach, though few writers have described the operational dynamics of such an approach. A global model of interdisciplinary problem-solving is presented based on the premise that the unity of the interdisciplinary approach derives from the creation of an intermediary process that relies on common language, shared information, a mutual sense of stakeholding, and the resolution of disciplinary differences. The theoretical underpinning of this approach is the conceptualization of interdisciplinary problem-solving as a communicative process that requires attention to the rhetorical and political dynamics of working with competing interests, practices, and disciplines. The practice portion is a composite picture of effective models, skills, activities, strategies, and techniques employed by actuals interdisciplinary teams. This global model offers a way of both theoretically and practically visualizing Th. K. van Lohuizen's ideal of achieving unity of town planning, an ideal that has profound implications for the organization of both professional practice and training.

[1]  R. Burchell,et al.  Planning theory in the 1980's : a search for future directions , 1978 .

[2]  J. Habermas Theory of Communicative Action , 1981 .

[3]  Rainer Schulte The Act of Translation: From Interpretation to Interdisciplinary Thinking , 1979 .

[4]  Stuart L. Hart,et al.  Managing Complexity Through Consensus Mapping: Technology for the Structuring of Group Decisions , 1985 .

[5]  J. Klein,et al.  Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice. , 1991 .

[6]  T. Byrne Politics and Planning. , 1970 .

[7]  Ernest R. Alexander,et al.  After Rationality, What? A Review of Responses to Paradigm Breakdown , 1984 .

[8]  Donald A. Schön Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions , 1987 .

[9]  H. Ansoff,et al.  Managing Strategic Surprise by Response to Weak Signals , 1975 .

[10]  J. Friedmann Retracking America;: A theory of transactive planning , 1973 .

[11]  John Forester,et al.  Critical Theory and Planning Practice , 1980 .

[12]  C. D. Perman,et al.  A PLANNER'S INTRODUCTION TO EXPERT SYSTEMS , 1987 .

[13]  Martin Clarke,et al.  Synthesis—A Synthetic Spatial Information System for Urban and Regional Analysis: Methods and Examples , 1988 .

[14]  Maynard Martin Baldwin,et al.  Portraits of complexity : applications of systems methodologies to societal problems , 1975 .

[15]  D. Schon Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. The Jossey-Bass Higher Education Series. , 1987 .

[16]  P. Diesing,et al.  Reason in society , 1962 .

[17]  Ilan Vertinsky,et al.  KSIM: A methodology for interactive resource policy simulation , 1973 .

[18]  R. Mason Challenging strategic planning assumptions , 1981 .

[19]  M. A. Wachter Interdisciplinary Bioethics: But Where Do We Start?A Reflection on Epochè as Method , 1982 .

[20]  B. Checkoway Building Citizen Support for Planning at the Community Level , 1986, The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare.

[21]  M. Mccorcle Critical Issues in the Functioning of Interdisciplinary Groups , 1982 .

[22]  André L. Delbecq,et al.  A Group Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planning , 1971 .

[23]  John N. Warfield,et al.  SOCIETAL SYSTEMS Planning, Policy and Complexity , 1978 .

[24]  P. Haas,et al.  An Interdisciplinary Model to Implement General Education , 1983 .

[25]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[26]  A. Stone The Interdisciplinary Research Team , 1969 .

[27]  H. Rittel,et al.  Dilemmas in a general theory of planning , 1973 .