IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/cpprxx/v30y2015i2p179-201.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Critical Reflection on the Experimental Method for Planning Research: Testing the Added Value of PSS in a Controlled Environment

Author

Listed:
  • Marco te Br�mmelstroet

Abstract

For planning research to successfully generate usable mechanisms for planning practitioners more hypothesis-testing research designs are needed. Currently, the academic field seems more geared toward generating hypotheses, either by observing practice or from theoretical studies. This approach is especially common in research that generates knowledge of planning. In this paper, I map several relevant research designs that allow for such hypothesis testing and discuss their usability in planning research. Then, I particularly focus on the experimental method as a promising design for generating contextualized mechanisms for planning practice. I describe and analyze a study that aimed to develop mechanisms about the added value of knowledge technologies for the quality of planning. Two consecutive experiments are described in detail, after which the usability of the experimental method for planning research is discussed. Reflecting on these experiments indicate that the main strength of this research design is that it allows to create ideal circumstances for falsification (which is virtually impossible in planning practices. The main weakness is the ecological validity of findings, especially when the research is executed with students.

Suggested Citation

  • Marco te Br�mmelstroet, 2015. "A Critical Reflection on the Experimental Method for Planning Research: Testing the Added Value of PSS in a Controlled Environment," Planning Practice & Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(2), pages 179-201, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:cpprxx:v:30:y:2015:i:2:p:179-201
    DOI: 10.1080/02697459.2015.1023077
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/02697459.2015.1023077
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/02697459.2015.1023077?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:cpprxx:v:30:y:2015:i:2:p:179-201. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/cppr20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.