Introduction: An Invitation to Inquire the Relations Inside Planning

  • Marko Marskamp
  • Julio Paulos
  • Monika Kurath
  • Jean Ruegg


While spatial planning has a strong interest in relations across space and time, these relations have been little studied with respect to the relations inside the planning practices themselves. To grasp this relationality between and within the objects and practices of planning, we suggest turning to the field of science and technology studies (STS). It informs empirical studies of planning situations and guides descriptions of how different publics, forms of expertise and types of intervention come together in planning. Introducing the collection's overarching triad of artefacts, agency and practices of planning, this chapter discusses how the collected studies make use of STS to approach the messy ordering of uncertainty in planning processes and so emphasize the heterogeneity of entities, the contingency of relations and the multiplicity of knowledge and action involved.


  1. Aibar, E., and W.E. Bijker. 1997. Constructing a City: The Cerdà Plan for the Extension of Barcelona. Science, Technology, & Human Values 22: 3–30. doi: 10.1177/016224399702200101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beauregard, R.A. 2012. Planning with Things. Journal of Planning Education and Research 32: 182–190. doi: 10.1177/0739456X11435415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ———. 2013. The Neglected Places of Practice. Planning Theory & Practice 14 (1): 8–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ———. 2015. Planning Matter: Acting with Things. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bijker, W.E., T.P. Hughes, and T.J. Pinch. 1987. The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Blok, A., and I. Farías, eds. 2016. Urban Cosmopolitics: Agencements, Assemblies, Atmospheres. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Boelens, L. 2010. Theorizing Practice and Practising Theory: Outlines for an Actor-Relational-Approach in Planning. Planning Theory 9: 28–62. doi: 10.1177/1473095209346499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brenner, N., D.J. Madden, and D. Wachsmuth. 2011. Assemblage Urbanism and the Challenges of Critical Urban Theory. City 15: 225–240. doi: 10.1080/13604813.2011.568717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brenner, N., and N. Theodore, eds. 2003. Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe. 1st ed. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Callon, M. 1984. Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review 32: 196–233. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.1984.tb00113.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins, H.M. 1985. Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Coutard, O., and S. Guy. 2007. STS and the City: Politics and Practices of Hope. Science, Technology, & Human Values 32: 713–734. doi: 10.1177/0162243907303600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davies, S.R., C. Selin, G. Gano, and Â.G. Pereira. 2012. Citizen Engagement and Urban Change: Three Case Studies of Material Deliberation. Cities (London, England) 29: 351–357. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2011.11.012.Google Scholar
  14. Doak, J., and N. Karadimitriou. 2016. (Re)development, Complexity and Networks: A Framework for Research. Urban Studies 44 (2): 209–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Farías, I., and T. Bender, eds. 2011. Urban Assemblages: How Actor-Network Theory Changes Urban Studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Friedmann, J. 1973. Retracking America: A Theory of Transactive Planning. Anchor Press.Google Scholar
  17. Flyvbjerg, B. 1998. Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. 1st ed. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Forester, J. 1999. The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Friedmann, J. 1993. Toward a Non-Euclidian Mode of Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 59: 482–485. doi: 10.1080/01944369308975902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gad, C., and C.B. Jensen. 2016. Lateral Concepts. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 2: 3–12. doi: 10.17351/ests2016.77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gomart, E., and M. Hajer. 2003. Is that Politics? For an Inquiry into Forms in Contemporary Politics. In Social Studies of Science and Technology: Looking Back Ahead, ed. B. Joerges and H. Nowotny, 33–61. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Graham, S., and S. Marvin. 2001. Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition. 1st ed. London; New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Healey, P. 1997. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. UBC Press.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 2006. Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a Relational Planning for Our Times. Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Jasanoff, S. 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Joerges, B. 1999. Do Politics Have Artefacts? Social Studies of Science 29: 411–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Knorr-Cetina, K.D. 1981. The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lascoumes, P., and P.L. Galès. 2005. Gouverner par les Instruments. Paris: Les Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
  29. ———. 1993. The Pasteurization of France. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Latour, B. 2004. Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern. Critical Inquiry 30: 225–248. doi: 10.1086/421123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. ———. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. ———. 2011. Drawing Things Together. In The Map Reader, ed. M. Dodge, R. Kitchin, and C. Perkins, 65–72. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. doi: 10.1002/9780470979587.ch9.
  33. Latour, B., and E. Hermant. 1998. Paris: Invisible City. Paris: La Découverte-Les Empêcheurs de penser en rond.Google Scholar
  34. Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Law, J. 1992. Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy, and Heterogeneity. Systems Practice 5: 379–393. doi: 10.1007/BF01059830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lieto, L., and R.A. Beauregard, eds. 2015. Planning for a Material World. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Löw, M. 2008. The Constitution of Space: The Structuration of Spaces Through the Simultaneity of Effect and Perception. European Journal of Social Theory 11: 25–49. doi: 10.1177/1368431007085286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lynch, M.E., and S. Woolgar, eds. 1990. Representation in Scientific Practice. MIT Press ed. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. McFarlane, C. 2011. Learning the City: Knowledge and Translocal Assemblage. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  40. Metzger, J., P. Allmendinger, and S. Oosterlynck, eds. 2014. Planning Against the Political: Democratic Deficits in European Territorial Governance. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Mol, A. 2003. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press Books.Google Scholar
  42. Murdoch, J. 2006. Post-structuralist Geography: A Guide to Relational Space. SAGE.Google Scholar
  43. Pinch, T.J., and W.E. Bijker. 1984. The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. Social Studies of Science 14: 399–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. de Roo, G., and J. Hillier. 2012. Complexity and Planning: Systems, Assemblages and Simulations. Farnham, Surrey, UK; Burlington, VT: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. de Roo, G., and E.A. Silva. 2010. A Planner’s Encounter with Complexity. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.Google Scholar
  46. Rydin, Y. 2013. Using Actor-Network Theory to Understand Planning Practice: Exploring Relationships Between Actants in Regulating Low Carbon Commercial Development. Planning Theory 12: 23–45.Google Scholar
  47. Rydin, Y. 2014. The Challenges of the ‘Material Turn’ for Planning Studies. Planning Theory & Practice 15: 590–595. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2014.968007.
  48. Rydin, Y., and L. Tate. 2016. Actor Networks of Planning: Exploring the Influence of Actor Network Theory. Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Sayes, E. 2014. Actor–Network Theory and Methodology: Just What Does It Mean to Say that Nonhumans have Agency? Social Studies of Science 44: 134–149. doi: 10.1177/0306312713511867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shapin, S., and S. Schaffer. 2011. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Sismondo, S. 2009. An Introduction to Science and Technology Studies. 2nd ed. Chichester, West Sussex, UK; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  52. Thrift, N. 2008. Space: The Fundamental Stuff of Human Geography. In Key Concepts in Geography, ed. N. Clifford, S. Holloway, S.P. Rice, and G. Valentine, 95–107. SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  53. Tironi, M., I. Rodríguez-Giralt, and M. Guggenheim, eds. 2014. Disasters and Politics: Materials, Experiments, Preparedness. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  54. Van Heur, B., L. Leydesdorff, and S. Wyatt. 2013. Turning to Ontology in STS? Turning to STS through ‘Ontology’. Social Studies of Science 43: 341–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Whittle, A., and A. Spicer. 2008. Is Actor Network Theory Critique? Organization Studies 29: 611–629. doi: 10.1177/0170840607082223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Winner, L. 1980. Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus 109: 121–136.Google Scholar
  57. Woolgar, S., and G. Cooper. 1999. Do Artefacts Have Ambivalence? Moses’ Bridges, Winner’s Bridges and Other Urban Legends in S&TS. Social Studies of Science 29: 433–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Woolgar, S., and J. Lezaun. 2013. The Wrong Bin Bag: A Turn to Ontology in Science and Technology Studies? Social Studies of Science 43: 321–340. doi: 10.1177/0306312713488820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marko Marskamp
    • 1
  • Julio Paulos
    • 2
  • Monika Kurath
    • 3
  • Jean Ruegg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.ETH Wohnforum – CASE, ETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Research & FacultyUniversity of St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations