The APA Conference: Options That Could Transform Planning Practice

The planning profession has the unrealized potential to transform society--to change the nature of public dialogue by providing leadership in addressing complex problems, building bridges among different perspectives, expanding the process and substance of citizen involvement, and speaking on behalf of issues of equity. When viewed from this perspective, the APA conference falls short.

What is missing is a sense of urgency. The program is a pot pouri of interesting elements, but they are not building to a logical conclusion. "Who and What is Killing Planning?" is the intriguing title of a session that precedes the final plenary. If the substance conforms with the title, it certainly seems like it would have been more appropriate to present this debate earlier in the conference so it could frame subsequent dialogue. In its current time slot, the session reads like an afterthought, something that may be mildly intriguing to those of us who stay until the very end.

Outside of this conference, we are each deeply enmeshed in our own corner of the world dealing with daily challenges and frustrations. When deadlines loom large and local crises dominate our reality, it is easy to lose perspective. We need opportunities to reaffirm why we chose this field and did not pursue more lucrative professions. We need the "Big Picture."

My wish is that this conference would be infused with the Big Picture. How could this be done? First of all, I would ask APA to sponsor the preparation of an annual state of planning report. This could be a single article or perhaps a collection of short papers. I would want it to be compelling reading; its purpose would be to inform and transform dialogue, not put people to sleep. Ideally, conference participants would have an opportunity to read this before they arrive. To this end, it could be published in Planning and/or placed on APA's Web Site. I would devote an opening plenary session to discussing the implications of this assessment to both APA and planning practice. A keynote speaker could cover the primary issues with respondents developing additional themes.

I would schedule an entire track of sessions that further convey this Big Picture. I would organize sessions that allow us an opportunity to appreciate and learn from the wisdom of different fields of scholarship that have something of importance to say to planners. We need to purposefully listen to sociologists, hydrologists, chemists, artists, philosophers, etc.

As a person who is grounded in both academia and the planning profession, I am deeply concerned at the lack of connection between these perspectives. As the Professional Development Officer for the Oregon chapter of APA, I once organized a one day continuing education session on the use of research in planning. I have never had more difficulty finding qualified speakers either in the planning profession or academia. There are planners who do not ground their work in existing research, and correspondingly, researchers who are not disseminating their insights in a way that is reaching practitioners and policy makers. I would like to see the Big Picture track include sessions that bridge this gap. We need to develop professional capacities to access and appropriately use relevant research findings. Planners would further their own interests if we learned how to take an active role in framing research questions.

As the only organization speaking on behalf of planners and planning throughout the nation, APA clearly has a lot to say about the field. Nevertheless, APA does not stand alone. APA conferences are part of a constellation of conferences and meetings that attract planners and people interested in planning. These include, for example, the Congress of New Urbanism, the Transportation Research Board, the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning and various state conferences sponsored by zoning code officials, planning commissioners and councils of government. It would be of value to have a Big Picture session that examines the key themes and directions coming out of these venues, placing APA within an ecology of planning-related initiatives.

Within this Big Picture theme, we need to explore models for constructively criticizing our own work. (The property rights activists are having a heyday because we were too righteous to listen). We need to develop and showcase ways in which we can embrace our critics, not to co-opt, but to understand. We must foster the notion of societal learning, fully operationalizing the feedback loop, that long-forgotten final step of the rational planning paradigm. Consider for a moment the transformation of public and political dialogue if we were always insistent on learning from past efforts. Mistakes could be a source for learning rather than something to be ignored (or more commonly, swept under the carpet).

We need to actively encourage alternative ways of communicating with others what we learn in the course of our work. Part of the Big Picture track should include sessions on how planners can more broadly share their insights. This would include how to write for publication, taking advantage of emerging technology such as sharing experiences on Web Sites, and mentoring both students and citizens interested in community planning.

Part of the emphasis on the Big Picture involves framing the issues that we need to be pursuing as planners. At the San Francisco APA conference, I attended a session on the internet and planning. Someone made the point that planners have a role to play in helping citizens make sense of the extraordinary quantities of information available. Comprehending the volume of information was equated with trying to drink from a firehose. The session did not provide answers to the question of how best to help the public use the internet, but posing the challenge represented an important and lasting contribution.

Within the structure of the conference, we should be developing and modelling approaches we are trying to encourage. We need to better capture the collective wisdom represented in the extraordinary array of conference speakers and participants. APA already makes audio tapes available on order, but they are expensive and time consuming to use if one is interested in learning about multiple sessions. As an alternative, we could train planners (and perhaps students) to serve as notetakers with a compilation of their summaries to be published in a conference report or posted on a Web Site. A supplemental information-gathering method would be to invite conference attendees to share what they are learning as part of an interactive computer setup.

Where can we talk about issues of importance with a sense that our deliberations will have a larger purpose? Most of us experience the conference as being "talked at." There is very little by way of structured engagement of anyone other than speakers and APA leaders. Some of us will find ourselves in intense discussions in the hallways. But there is no mechanism to make these dialogues accessible to all. If we cannot structure a meaningful discussion among 4000+ relatively like-minded attendees, how are we going to foster dialogues in our communities back home?

As planners, we are committed to public participation. Let's try it among ourselves. APA conferences (both state and national) are prime opportunities for developing and testing new methods of communication. How about devoting a plenary luncheon to small group discussions focusing on issues of concern to APA, to planning and to the profession? A different question could be posted at each table allowing people to select the one of most interest. The results of these dialogues could be compiled for a final report at the end of the conference. Alternatively, we could experiment with using interactive computer terminals to record and compile written responses to key questions, perhaps providing an interim compilation so that attendees can develop their thoughts even further (a modified Delphi technique, perhaps?).

The APA conferences are organized on the premise that attendees can, on their own, make the connections that they want and need. Recognizing that there are some introverts among us who may be uncomfortable sticking their noses in someone else's badge or assertively introducing themselves to a pillar of the planning field, wouldn't it be possible to experiment with some alternative ways of facilitating interactions? Again, technology could be helpful. We could develop a computer program that allows attendees to access a database indicating who is at the conference, where they come from and what their areas of interests are. We could have a computer-generated map indicating where everyone is from. And we could even try some old fashioned icebreaker and mingling games to encourage people to meet and talk.

Concluding Thoughts

We need to foster self-reflective practice so that planners are fully aware of the global context and ethical implication of their efforts. We need to develop the courage and wherewithal to challenge prevailing assumptions. We need to commit ourselves to making a difference. It is time for us to direct our profession down a pathway towards growth, not in numbers but in quality and effectiveness. The APA conference can and should be an important opportunity for realizing this potential.