Where Do Planners belong? Assessing the Relationship between Planning and design in American Universities

Luc Anselin, Jack L. Nasar, Emily Talen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article assesses the performance of U.S. planning programs relative to their administrative location in design versus nondesign units. We use both archival data to compare program rankings between design and nondesign units and a survey of a random sample of faculty (108 at 61 accredited programs). The archival data show a higher publication performance of programs in nondesign units. The survey finds that faculty respondents from nondesign locations have more favorable evaluations of their programs than do respondents from design locations. Administrators and faculty differ: while faculty in design units score their programs dramatically lower, administrators have a moderate difference in the reverse direction.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)196-207
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Planning Education and Research
Volume31
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2011

Fingerprint

planning
program planning
random sample
performance
ranking
programme
evaluation

Keywords

  • administrator satisfaction
  • faculty satisfaction
  • planning program performance
  • program location
  • publication rate
  • urban design

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Development
  • Urban Studies
  • Geography, Planning and Development

Cite this

Where Do Planners belong? Assessing the Relationship between Planning and design in American Universities. / Anselin, Luc; Nasar, Jack L.; Talen, Emily.

In: Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 31, No. 2, 06.2011, p. 196-207.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ef3a84d62f1e434aa7f31ca25b42a2e1,
title = "Where Do Planners belong? Assessing the Relationship between Planning and design in American Universities",
abstract = "This article assesses the performance of U.S. planning programs relative to their administrative location in design versus nondesign units. We use both archival data to compare program rankings between design and nondesign units and a survey of a random sample of faculty (108 at 61 accredited programs). The archival data show a higher publication performance of programs in nondesign units. The survey finds that faculty respondents from nondesign locations have more favorable evaluations of their programs than do respondents from design locations. Administrators and faculty differ: while faculty in design units score their programs dramatically lower, administrators have a moderate difference in the reverse direction.",
keywords = "administrator satisfaction, faculty satisfaction, planning program performance, program location, publication rate, urban design",
author = "Luc Anselin and Nasar, {Jack L.} and Emily Talen",
year = "2011",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1177/0739456X11402356",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "31",
pages = "196--207",
journal = "Journal of Planning Education and Research",
issn = "0739-456X",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Where Do Planners belong? Assessing the Relationship between Planning and design in American Universities

AU - Anselin, Luc

AU - Nasar, Jack L.

AU - Talen, Emily

PY - 2011/6

Y1 - 2011/6

N2 - This article assesses the performance of U.S. planning programs relative to their administrative location in design versus nondesign units. We use both archival data to compare program rankings between design and nondesign units and a survey of a random sample of faculty (108 at 61 accredited programs). The archival data show a higher publication performance of programs in nondesign units. The survey finds that faculty respondents from nondesign locations have more favorable evaluations of their programs than do respondents from design locations. Administrators and faculty differ: while faculty in design units score their programs dramatically lower, administrators have a moderate difference in the reverse direction.

AB - This article assesses the performance of U.S. planning programs relative to their administrative location in design versus nondesign units. We use both archival data to compare program rankings between design and nondesign units and a survey of a random sample of faculty (108 at 61 accredited programs). The archival data show a higher publication performance of programs in nondesign units. The survey finds that faculty respondents from nondesign locations have more favorable evaluations of their programs than do respondents from design locations. Administrators and faculty differ: while faculty in design units score their programs dramatically lower, administrators have a moderate difference in the reverse direction.

KW - administrator satisfaction

KW - faculty satisfaction

KW - planning program performance

KW - program location

KW - publication rate

KW - urban design

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79957868058&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79957868058&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0739456X11402356

DO - 10.1177/0739456X11402356

M3 - Article

VL - 31

SP - 196

EP - 207

JO - Journal of Planning Education and Research

JF - Journal of Planning Education and Research

SN - 0739-456X

IS - 2

ER -