Advertisement

Theoretical Underpinnings of the Four Hypothesized Roles

  • Joongsub KimEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter investigates what accomplishments and lessons from pertinent literature can tell us about the implications of interview and survey results with respect to design reviewers’ hypothesized roles. Although developing a coherent formal theory of these roles is not a central goal of this book, the chapter explores the theoretical underpinnings that support the roles’ underlying ideas.

References

  1. Arnett, R. C. (1986). Communication and community: Implications of Martin Buber’s dialogue. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Balachandra, L., Barrett, F., Bellman, H., Fisher, C., & Susskind, L. (2005, October). Improvisation and mediation: Balancing acts. Negotiation Journal, 21(4), 425-434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barton, H. (2005, Winter). A health map for urban planners: Towards a conceptual model for healthy, sustainable settlements. Built Environment, 31(4), 339–355. Retrieved April 1, 2009 from ATypon Link.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baum, H. (1997). The organization of hope. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  5. Blakely, E. J., Sharpe, S. M., Mandelbaum, S. J., Brooks, M. P., McClendon, B. W., & Meck, S. (1993). Planners, heal thyselves: Planning education, educators, and practitioners in the next century. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59(2), 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowers, J. (2007). Citizen education and its effects on trust in municipal government, political participation, and perceived knowledge of municipal government.Google Scholar
  7. Brody, S. D., Godschalk, D. R., & Burby, R. J. (2003). Mandating citizen participation in plan making: Six strategic planning choices. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(3), 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burroughs, W., Drews, D., & Hallman, W. (1991). Predicting personality from personal possessions: A handbook on ownership and property (F. W. Rudmin, Ed.). Corte Madera, CA: Select Press.Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, J. H., & Hepler, H. W. (1979). Dimensions of communication: Readings. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T., & Tiesdell, S. (2007). The communication process. In M. Larice & E. Macdonald (Eds.), The urban design reader (pp. 479–489). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Colosi, T. (1999). The role of the mediator. Negotiation: Readings, exercises, and cases (3rd ed., pp. 421–428). Boston, MA, US: Irwin/The McGraw-Hill Companies.Google Scholar
  12. Day, C. (2003). Consensus design: Socially inclusive process. Oxford, Great Britain: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  13. De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. (2007, May). The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 639–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Faga, B. (2006). Designing public consensus. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Fairfield, K. & Allred, K. (2007, August). Skillful inquiry as a means to success in mixed-motive negotiation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(8), 1837–1855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferrin, D., Bligh, M., & Kohles, J. (2007, August). Can I trust you to trust me?: A theory of trust, monitoring, and cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup relationships. Group & Organization Management, 32(4), 465–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fisher, A., Sonn, C., & Bishop, B. (2002). Psychological sense of community: Research, applications, and implications. New York, NY, US: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Forester, J. (1987). Planning in the face of conflict: Negotiation and mediation strategies in local land use regulation. American Planning Association Journal, 53(3), 303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Forester, J. (1999a). Challenges of mediation and deliberation in the design professions: Practice stories from Israel and Norway. Journal of Architectural Planning and Research, 16(2), 116–132.Google Scholar
  20. Forester, J. (1999b). The deliberative practioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Forester, J. (2009). Dealing with differences: Dramas of mediating public disputes. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Forsyth, A. (2001). Sexuality and space: Nonconformist populations and planning practice. Journal of planning literature, 15(3), 339–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Garcia, A. (1991, December). Dispute resolution without disputing: How the interactional organization of mediation hearings minimizes argument. American Sociological Review, 56(6), 818–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gifford, R. (2007). Environmental psychology: Principles and practice. Colville, WA: Optimal books.Google Scholar
  25. Healey, P. (2006). Urban complexity and spatial strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times. Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Hodges, M. (2006). Empathy, meta-attributions, judgment of conflict and preferences for negotiation.Google Scholar
  27. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hubbard, P. (1996). Conflicting interpretation of architecture: An empirical investigation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16(2), 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Innes, J. E. (1996). Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(4), 460–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Innes, J. E., & Gruber, J. (2005). Planning styles in conflict: The metropolitan transportation commission. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(2), 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jones, H. (1999). Neighborhood planning: A guide for citizens and planners. Chicago, IL: Planners Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kaplan, M. (1990). Designing community participation special events that cross generational boundaries. Coming of age (pp. 120–128). Edmond, OK, US: Environmental Design Research Association. Retrieved November 9, 2007 from PsycINFO database.Google Scholar
  34. Kellett, P. (2007). Conflict dialogue: Working with layers of meaning for productive relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  35. Klassen, W. W. (1990). Architecture and philosophy: Phenomenology, hermeneutics, deconstruction. Cebu City, Philippines: University of San Carlos.Google Scholar
  36. Kopec, D. (2012). Environmental psychology for design. New York: Fairchild Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  37. Krantz, R. S. (2004). Practicing creative democracy: Participatory neighborhood planning, community organizing, and pragmatist sociology in Madison, Wisconsin. Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 64(8), 3096-A.Google Scholar
  38. Kusenbach, M. (2003). Street phenomenology: The go-along as ethnographic research tool. Ethnography, 4(3), 455–485. Retrieved April 22, 2009 from Sage database.  https://doi.org/10.1177/146613810343007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Landau, D., & Landau, S. (1997, December). Confidence-building measures in mediation. Mediation Quarterly, 15(2), 97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Langsdorf, L. (1997). Argument as inquiry in a postmodern context. Argumentation, 11(3), 315–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Larice, M., & Macdonald, E. (Eds.). (2007). The urban design reader. Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Larice, M., & Macdonald, E. (Eds.). (2013). The urban design reader. Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Lawhon, L. L. (2003, Summer). Planners’ perceptions of their role in socially responsive neighborhood design. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 20(2), 153–163.Google Scholar
  44. Malnar, J., & Vodvarka, F. (2004). Sensory design. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  45. Mead, G., Blumer, H., Lakoff, G., Johnson, M., Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (2003). Section 2. Language and communication. Inner lives and social worlds: Readings in social psychology (pp. 50–78). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Norberg-Shulz, C. (1980). Genius loci: Towards a phenomenology of architecture. New York: Rizzoli.Google Scholar
  47. Nussbaum, M. (1990). Love’s knowledge: Essays on literature and philosophy. New York: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
  48. Pellegrinelli, S. (2002). Managing the interplay and tensions of consulting interventions: The consultant-client relationship as mediation and reconciliation. Journal of Management Development, 21(5), 343–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Peters, K., & Kashima, Y. (2007, November). From social talk to social action: Shaping the social triad with emotion sharing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 780–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Porth, R. J. (2002, Fall). Access to opportunity: The biggest regional challenge. National Civic Review, 91(3), 257–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Retzinger, S., & Scheff, T. (2006). Emotion, alienation, and narratives in protracted conflict. The psychology of resolving global conflicts: From war to peace (Vol. 1): Nature vs. nurture (pp. 239–255). Westport, CT: Praeger Security International.Google Scholar
  52. Rogers, C. (2007, September). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 44(3), 240–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Roseland, M. (2005). Toward sustainable communities. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  54. Sandercock, L. (2003). Dreaming the sustainable city: Organizing hope, negotiating fear, mediating memory. In B Eckstein & J. Throgmorton (Eds.), Story and sustainability: Planning, practice, and possibility for American cities, Massachusetts (pp. 142–164). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. Sanoff, H. (2000). Community participation methods in design and planning. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  56. Scheer, B. C. (1994). Introduction: The debate on design review. In B. C. Scheer & W. F. E. Preiser (Eds.), Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic controls (pp. 1–10). New York: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Scheer, B. C., & Preiser, W. F. E. (Eds.). (1994). Design review: Challenging urban aesthetic control. New York: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  58. Schön, D. A. (1985). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials. International Specialized Book Service Incorporated.Google Scholar
  59. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  60. Schwarz, R. M. (2003). Becoming a facilitative leader: The path to positive outcomes can be counterintuitive. New York: Jossey Bass Inc.Google Scholar
  61. Schwarz, R. M. (2009). The skilled facilitative leader: How to get results you didn’t think possible. New York: Jossey Bass Inc.Google Scholar
  62. Seamon, D. (Ed.). (1993). Dwelling, seeing, and designing: Toward a phenomenological ecology. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  63. Susskind, R., & Cruikshank, J. (2006). Breaking Robert’s rules: The new way to run your meeting, build consensus and get results. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Takahashi, L. M., & Gaber, S. L. (1998). Controversial facility siting in the urban environment: Resident and planner perceptions in the United States. Environment and Behavior, 30(2), 184–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tyler, T. (2001). Why do people rely on others? Social identity and social aspects of trust. Trust in society (pp. 285–306). New York, NY, US: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Architecture and DesignLawrence Technological UniversitySouthfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations