Abstract
This chapter charts the theoretical terrain between planning theory and social studies of science and technology. It reflects on the intellectual undertaking of ‘translating’, or adopting, into the planning field, the concept of trading zone developed by Peter Galison in the field of social studies of science and technology (STS). The chapter proposes to view the concept of trading zone as a sensitizing concept rather than a definitive concept, following the distinction by Herbert Blumer. Methodological development is needed in order for the concept of trading zone to become an analytical tool in the study of on-going planning practices. The chapter ends with still timely reminder by Blumer, of the need to develop a methodological stance, which respects research objects as ‘persons with a self’, that is to say, as persons who have their unique interpretive horizons, meaning making facilities and agency, all of which need to be incorporated into an analysis of joint action.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allmendinger P (2009) Planning theory. Palgrave, Basingstoke
Alterman R (1992) A transatlantic view of planning education and professional practice. J Plann Educ Res 12(1):39–54
Balducci A, Bertolini L (2007) Interface. Reflecting on practice or reflecting with practice? Plann Theor Pract 8(4):532–555
Beauregard RA (2012) Planning with things. J Plann Educ Res 32(2):182–190
Blumer H (1969/1998) Symbolic interactionism. Perspective and method. University of California Press, Berkeley
Cole M (1998) Can cultural psychology help us think about diversity? Mind Cult Activ 5(4):291–304
Cole M, Engeström Y (1993) A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In: Salomon G (ed) Distributed cognitions: psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 1–46
Engeström Y (1987) Learning by expanding: an activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit, Hki
Engeström Y, Escalante V (1996) Mundane tool or object of affection? The rise and fall of the postal buddy. In: Nardi BA (ed) Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 325–374
Engeström Y, Sannino A (2010) Studies of expansive learning: foundations, findings and future challenges. Educ Res Rev 5(1):1–24
Fleck L (1979) Genesis and development of a scientific fact. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Forester J (1989) Planning in the face of power. University of California Press, Berkeley
Forester J (2012) Learning to improve practice: lessons from practice stories and practitioners’ own discourse analysis (or why only the loons show up). Plann Theor Pract 13(1):11–26
Friedmann J (1987) Planning in the public domain: from knowledge to action. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Friedmann J (2008) The uses of planning theory. J Plann Educ Res 28(2):247–257
Fuller B (2008) Cooperating and still disagreeing on what really matters. LKY School of Public Policy, Working paper SPP 01–08
Galison P (2010) Trading with the enemy. In: Gorman ME (ed) Trading zone and interactional expertise: creating new kinds of collaboration. MIT Press, Cambridge
Goldstein BE (2010) Epistemic mediation: aligning expertise across boundaries within an endangered species habitat conservation plan. Plann Theor Pract 11(4):523–547
Gorman ME (2010) Trading zone and interactional expertise: creating new kinds of collaboration. MIT Press, Cambridge
Hackett EJ et al (2008) Handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge
Hajer MA (2005) Rebuilding ground zero. The politics of performance. Plann Theor Pract 6(4):445–464
Hasu M (2005) In search of sensitive ethnography of change: Tracing the invisible handoffs from technology developers to users. Mind Cult Activ 12(2):90–112
Hasu M, Miettinen R (2006) Dialogue and intervention in science and technology studies: whose point of view? Working papers 35/2006, Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research, University of Helsinki, Helsinki
Healey P (2012) The universal and the contingent: some reflections on the transnational flow of planning ideas and practices. Plann Theor 11(2):188–207
Knorr Cetina K (2000) Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Knorr Cetina K (2001) Objectual practice. In: Schatzki T, Knorr Cetina K, von Savigny E (eds) The practice turn in contemporary theory. Routledge, London, pp 175–188
Knuuttila T (2005) Models as epistemic artefacts: toward a non-representationalist account of scientific representation. University of Helsinki, Helsinki
Kuhn TS (1962/1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Miettinen R (2000) The concept of experiential learning and John Dewey’s theory of reflective thought and action. Int J Lifelong Educ 19(1):37–41
Miettinen R (2004) The role of the researcher in developmentally-oriented research. In: Kontinen T (ed) Development Intervention. Actor and activity perspectives. University of Helsinki, Helsinki
Miettinen R (2006) Epistemology of transformative material activity: John Dewey’s pragmatism and cultural-historical activity theory. J Theor Social Behav 36(4):389–408
Miettinen R, Paavola S, Pohjola P (2012) From habituality to change: contribution of activity theory and pragmatism to practice theories. J Theor Social Behav 42(3):345–360
Rheinberger H-J (1997) Toward a history of epistemic things: synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford University Press, Stanford
Schatzki T, Knorr Cetina K, von Savigny E (2001) The practice turn in contemporary theory. Routledge, London
Sismondo S (2008) Science and technology studies and an engaged program. In: Hackett EJ et al (eds) Handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge
Star SL (2010) This is not a boundary object: reflections on the origin of a concept. Sci Technol Hum Val 35(5):601–617
Straatemeier T, Bertolini L, te Brömmelstroet M, Hoetjes P (2010) An experiential approach to research in planning. Environ Plann B Plann Des 37(4):578–591
Wagenaar H (2011) Meaning in action. Interpretation and dialogue in policy analysis. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk
Woodhouse E, Hess D, Breyman S, Martin B (2002) Science studies and activism: possibilities and problems for reconstructivist agendas. Soc Stud Sci 32(2):297–319
Acknowledgments
I want to express my deep gratitude to those who made it possible for this contribution to emerge: Jussi Silvonen for being an excellent teacher and mentor in the history, philosophy and methodology of social sciences; Raine Mäntysalo for showing by personal example that academic research can be a creative joint enterprise; and Kaisa Schmidt-Thome for her invaluable help in the final phase.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kangasoja, J.K. (2013). Trading Zone as a Sensitizing Concept in Planning Research. In: Balducci, A., Mäntysalo, R. (eds) Urban Planning as a Trading Zone. Urban and Landscape Perspectives, vol 13. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5854-4_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5854-4_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5853-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5854-4
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)