Knowledge, Technology and Policy

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 29–55 | Cite as

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

  • Julie Thompson Klein
Feature Articles


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.


Consensus Mapping Interdisciplinary Approach Interpretive Structural Modeling Nominal Group Technique Town Planning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alexander, E.R. (1984). After rationality, what? A review of responses to paradigm breakdown.Journal of the American Planning Association, 50(1), 62–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansoff, H.I. (1975). Managing strategic surprise by response to weak signals.California Management Review, 18,(1), 21–33.Google Scholar
  3. Baldwin, R. (1975).Portraits of complexity: Applications of systems methodologies to societal problems. Columbia: Battelle.Google Scholar
  4. Birkin, M., & Clarke, M. (1988). SYNTHESIS—A synthetic spatial information system for urban and regional analysis: Methods and examples.Environmental and Planning Administration, 20,(12), 1645–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burchell, R., & Hughes, J. (1979). Planning theory in the 1980's—A search for future directions. In R. Burchell & G. Sternlieb (Eds.),Planning Theory in the 1980's (pp. xvii-liii). New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.Google Scholar
  6. Cassell, E.J. (1977). How does interdisciplinary work get done. In H. T. Englehardt & D. Callahan (Eds.),Knowledge, value, and belief (pp. 355–61). New York: Hastings Center.Google Scholar
  7. Checkoway, B. (1986). Building citizen support for planning at the community level. In M.J. Dluhy & K. Chen (Eds.),Interdisciplinary planning: A perspective for the future (pp. 136–151). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chen, K., & Mathes, J.C. (1986). Clarifying complex public policy issues: A social decision analysis contributions. In M. J. Dluhy & K. Chen (Eds.),Interdisciplinary planning: A perspective for the future (pp. 83–104). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cockhead, P., & Masters, R. (1984). Forecasting in Grampian: Three dimensions of integration.Town Planning Review, 55, (4), 473–488.Google Scholar
  10. Delbecq, Al, & Van de Ven, A. (1971) A group process model for problem identification and program planning.The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7 (4), 466–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. deWachter, M. (1982). Interdisciplinary bioethics: But where do we start? A reflection on epochè as method.”Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 7(3), 275–87.Google Scholar
  12. Diesing, P. (1962).Reason in society Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dluhy, M. (1986). Introduction: Planning perspectives. In M. J. Dluhy & K. Chen (Eds.),Interdisciplinary planning: A perspective for the future (pp. xiii-xvii). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dluhy, M.J., & Chen, K. (Eds.). (1986)Interdisciplinary planning: A perspective for the future. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers—The State University of New York.Google Scholar
  15. Forester, J. (1980). Critical theory and planning practice.Journal of the American Planning, Association, 46,(3), 275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forester, J. (1989). Critical theory, public policy, and planning practice. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  17. Frey, G. (1973). Methodological problems of interdisciplinary discussions.RATIO, 15(2), 161–82.Google Scholar
  18. Friedmann, J. (1973).Retracking America: A theory of transactive planning. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.Google Scholar
  19. Habermas, J. (1987).The theory of communicative action. V.II. Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason, (trs. by Thomas McCarthy). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hart, S. (1986). Steering the path between ambiguity and overload: Planning as strategic social process. In M. J. Dluhy & K. Chen (Eds.),INterdisciplinary planning: A perspective for the future (pp. 107–123). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hart, S. (1985). Managing complexity through consensus mapping: Technology for the structuring of group decisions.Academy of Management Review, 10(3) 587–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hursh, B., Haas, P., & Moore, M. (1983). An interdisciplinary model to implement general education.Journal of Higher Education 54, 42–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kane, J., Vertinsky, I., & Thompson, W. (1973). KSIM: A methodology for interactive resource simulation.Water Resources Research, 9, 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klein, J.T. (1990a).Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, and practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Klein, J. T. (1990b). Interdisciplinary resources: A bibliographic reflection.Issues in Integrative Studies (in press).Google Scholar
  26. Kochen, M., & Barr, C. (1986). How rational can planning be: Toward an information processing model of planning. In M.J. Dluhy & K. Chen (Eds.),Interdisciplinary planning: A perspective for the future (pp. 29–47). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Mason, R.O., & Mitroff, I. (1981).Challenging strategic planning assumptions New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  28. McCorcle, T. (1982). Critical issues in the functioning of interdisciplinary groups.Small Group Behavior, 13, 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Murray, T. (1983). Partial knowledge.Ethics, The Social Sciences, and Policy Sciences (pp. 305–331). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  30. Newton, G. (1990). POINT: The bridge between knowledge and wisdom. Washington, DC: Institute of Applied Research and Empirical Decision Making.Google Scholar
  31. Ortolano, L., & Perman, C.D. (1987). A planner's introduction to expert systems.Journal of the Planning Association, 53(1), 98–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Radford, K. (1977).Complex decision problems: An integrated strategy for their resolution. Reston: Reston Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Rittle, H.W.J., & Webber, M.M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning.Policy Sciences, 4, 167–69.Google Scholar
  34. Rothman, J., & Hugentobler, M. (1986). Planning theory and planning practice: Roles and attitudes of planners. In M.J. Dluhy & K. Chen (Eds.),Interdisciplinary planning: A perspective for the future (pp. 3–26). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Sanoff, H., (1973).Integrating user needs in environmental design. (NIH Contract #71-1102). Washington DC: Center for Studies of Child and Family Mental Health.Google Scholar
  36. Schön, D.A. (1987).Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  37. Schön, D.A. (1983).The reflective practitioners: How professionals think in action New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  38. Schulte, R. (1979). The act of translation: From interpretation to interdisciplinary thinking.Translation Review, 3–8.Google Scholar
  39. Sharp, J.M. (1983). A method for peer group appraisal and interpretation of data developed in interdisciplinary research programs. In S.R. Epton, R.L. Payne, & A.W. Pearson (Eds.),Managing Interdisciplinary Research (pp. 211–19). Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  40. Stone, A.R. (1969). The interdisciplinary research team.Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 5(3), 351–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Lohuizen, C.W.W. (1984, June).The knowledge household and policy making. Framework paper for the International Workshop on Utilization-Focused Research and Planning, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  42. Van Lohuizen, Th.K. (1948, February). The unity of town planning. Address upon taking office as Professor Extraordinary for Town Planning Research in the Delft Technological University.Google Scholar
  43. Vasu, M.L. (1979).Politics and planning. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  44. Warfield, J.N. (1976).Societal systems: Planning, policy, and complexity. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  45. Weiss, C. (1983). Ideology, interests, and information: The basis of policy positions. InEthics, the social sciences, and policy analysis (pp. 213–245). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  46. White, I.L. (1975) Interdisciplinarity. In S.R. Arnstein & A.N. Christakis (Eds.),Perspective on technology assessment (pp. 87–96). Jerusalem: Science and Technology Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julie Thompson Klein
    • 1
  1. 1.humanities divisionWayne State UniversityDetroit

Personalised recommendations