Advocacy Planning

Davidoff’s piece is well-intentioned, and written in a context in which the notion of plural planning is a positive departure from the planning establishment of the time. That said, there are limitations to what Davidoff proposes. To bring the conversation back to the Stein and Harper reading from last week, this is an instance in which critically examining Davidoff’s proposal in terms of power dynamics is helpful in understanding the limitations of advocacy planning. The primary qualm I have with this mode of planning is that it (at least, when viewing it from our present context. Again, it is important to point out that Davidoff is writing in a different context) reverses any of the gains that we saw in participatory design; namely, that the opportunity to contribute local knowledge or expertise has not been expanded, but contracted. While the idea of “plural planning” is admirable in that it acknowledges the multiplicity of different approaches to the same problem that may arise, this recognition does not do much if all it does is reframe issues as stark dichotomies (as Davidoff suggests when he claims that “there should be conservative and liberal plans”)(335).

Further, though his proposal may perhaps be more democratic than the iron-fisted approach public agencies are criticized to have taken, resorting to advocacy planning would counteract any mechanisms to attempt to solicit fair representation. For all the criticisms that could be mounted against public agencies for their failures to adequately engage the community, they at the very least can be held accountable. By shifting this responsibility to the creators of these “plural plans,” the transparency of the process hinges on the will of the advocate planner, someone who, as Davidoff makes clear, comes into the planning process not value-neutral, but with convictions of their own. Simply put, those with more resources or power have the stronger voice, and advocacy planning is an instance in which this stronger voice is required to enter the conversation.

The pieces by Carolini raise some questions for me, particularly about the positioning of the advocate-researcher and the community. While the impetus to not treat the communities researchers are working with as “subject” is understandable, it is nevertheless the case that the researcher will maintain some sense of being an “outsider”; how is this navigated in the research field, especially in light of the anxiety of [carrying] the burden of communities’ hopes?