GAP BETWEEN PLANNING PRACTICE AND RESEARCH IN TURKEY CASE: OLD METHODS FOR NEW ISSUES

Isocarp – 2021 In the international literature, one of the most important debates in planning practice is the gap between research, and practice (Durning, 2004; Forsyth, 2015, 2019; Goodman et al., 2017). In parallel with this international discussion, our empirical research about planning in Turkey, especially regarding private planning offices and local municipalities, reveals a disconnection between research and practice. Researchers follow a protocol for an academic study, adopt systematic data collection techniques, and emphasize a gap in knowledge (Forsyth, 2015: 469) whereas investigators collect data to develop tools to solve a particular problem (Forsyth, 2015: 469). Accordingly, investigations are mostly carried out for planning processes but not the academic research. To explore the relation between research and practice in planning field, we need to focus especially on the how the academics and partitioners collaborate, how the practitioner pursuit the current academic research, is the interdisciplinarity can be realized during the planning process. Additionally, methodologies provide the most concrete link between practice and research in planning. Hudson (2016) uses methodologies as one of the main indicators for comparing different planning approaches. This paper focuses on what are the analyse, prediction and decision-making methodologies using during the planning practice and the participatory dimensions of these processes. The data for this empirical research came from a comprehensive two-phase scientific research project focusing on both municipalities and private planning offices using the qualitative and quantitative methods together to understand the planning system in Turkey. In the first phase, information on planning offices registered under the Chamber of Urban Planners in 2018 and data on Professional Auditing Practices was obtained from the Headquarters of the Chamber of Urban Planners. Based on the data of registered companies, the distribution of planning offices by location was determined. According to this data 12 offices, between the offices that does most of the planning work are chosen and are interviewed in depth. In addition to the qualitative research, a comprehensive survey was conducted by sending a questionnaire to all 656 planning offices in Turkey, of which 119 responded. In the second phase, the planning process in the municipalities is examined and a comprehensive survey was conducted by sending a questionnaire to all the municipalities in Turkey and 234 planners from 98 different municipalities responded the questionnaire. Finally, to have a deeper understanding, 10 interviews carried out with experienced municipality planners. Consequently, this paper argues that understanding the relationship between research and practice in the planning field, requires particular attention to predict the quality, functionality, and the communicative dimensions of the urban plan. Planning in Turkey is dominated by outdated laws, rules, and regulations rather than current research or theoretical discussion. Analyses are very structured and old-school, while decision-making processes have not advanced to the communicative level. Instead, the leading factor in planning is the laws and regulations of the public authorities.