Journal of Planning Education and Research http://jpe.sagepub.

com/

Local Knowledge in Visually Mediated Practice

Ann Van Herzele and Cees M. J. van Woerkum Journal of Planning Education and Research 2008 27: 444 originally published online 20 March 2008 DOI: 10.1177/0739456X08315890 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jpe.sagepub.com/content/27/4/444

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning

Additional services and information for Journal of Planning Education and Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jpe.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jpe.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jpe.sagepub.com/content/27/4/444.refs.html

>> Version of Record - May 19, 2008 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Mar 20, 2008 What is This?

Downloaded from jpe.sagepub.com at Universitat Heidelberg on October 26, 2013

Local Knowledge in Visually Mediated Practice

Ann Van Herzele & Cees M. J. van Woerkum

Abstract Visualization tools such as maps, models, and computer images are used increasingly as means of involving people more effectively. We examine how a visualization tool in the form of a map-based model may shape the knowledge local people bring to the planning table. The analysis was guided by the concept of mediated action as it has been developed in sociocultural theory. We found that local knowledge was conditioned by a complexity of factors, including the dynamic of actions that develop around the tool and the way of looking imposed by map-based representation. The suggestion being made is that visualization tools, although bringing people closer to the planning process, also disconnect them from their local knowledge base. Keywords: local knowledge; visualization; artifact; public participation; sociocultural theory

Ann Van Herzele is a senior researcher at the Human Ecology Department of the Free University of Brussels. Her current work has focused on practices of decision making and knowledge usage in multiactor environments, in particular green space planning and management. Cees M. J. van Woerkum is a professor of communication management and head of the Communication Management Group of Wageningen University. His research and teaching interests include mass communication, interactive policy making, and communication management in organizations.

ncreasingly, contemporary planning practices tend to regard ordinary citizens as experts who are invited to contribute their insights and firsthand experience of the situation. Such recognition of what is labeled local knowledge appears to represent a change from before, when citizens rather were allowed to voice their interests and needs to the professionals. Although in some cases this new appreciation reflects practical experience,1 it is also part of a broad intellectual wave since the 1970s that is influencing our concepts of knowledge more generally. Recent trends demonstrate a renewed emphasis on the socially or culturally based, or situated, nature of knowledge (for theoretical contributions, see Vygotsky [1931] 1987; Latour 1987; Shotter 1993; Thrift 1996), combined with a recognition that planning should be an inclusive process seeking input from all types of knowledge (Innes 1990; Sandercock 1998; Healey 1999). As outlined by Frank Fischer (2000, 291), local knowledge can refer to knowledge about a specific local context, or it can more generally refer to all forms of knowledge. In this view, all knowledgewhether pertaining to the local or to the global is produced by, and grounded in, local practices. The emphasis in this article is on knowledge about local context, although our argument is sympathetic to the latter position as well. Studies may vary as to how they define and approach local knowledge, but it is usually thought of in relational terms; for example, [T]he expertise embedded in local knowledge resides in intimate familiarity with and understanding of the particulars of the local situation (Yanow 2004).2 In this sense, it is a kind of knowing from within (Shotter 1993, 18-19) through which only those intensely involved in the situation can really grasp what the situation is about. As a collective knowing developed in social interaction both with the situation at hand and with those who participate in that situation, local knowledge is easily accessible to locals but difficult for outside experts to capture. The growing importance attached to local knowledge, and the subsequent need to take account of it, puts pressure on planners to find new ways of combining their expertise with the contextual knowing that only local residents possess (Fischer 2000; Corburn 2003; Van Herzele 2004). At the same time, a growing range of participation tools has become available that can help planners integrate community values and expertise in design and planning projects. In this context, a central concept or watchword is often thought to be visualization. From unsophisticated techniques like onthe-spot sketching to high-technology games and Web-based computer simulations, all use photographs, maps, or other kinds of images to illustrate residents appraisals of their neighborhoods and link their ideas for improvement to specific places on the
Journal of Planning Education and Research 27:444-455 DOI: 10.1177/0739456X08315890 2008 Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning

444

Local Knowledge in Visually Mediated Practice

445

ground (for a critical review and comparison, see Hester 1990; Al-Kodmany 2002). Especially in the early planning stages, it is common to use large-scale maps or three-dimensional topographic models as a focus and physical base for people to put forward suggestions on how their area can be improved (as, for example, in Planning for Real).3 In literature, much has been written and discussed about the benefits of map-based visualization in planning, often with explicit reference to the practical difficulties in reaching these positive outcomes adequately. In this, a great deal of thought has been given to issues of access. A common argument used is that people can participate far more effectively if information is presented visually rather than in words (Wates 2000, 21) and that visualization tools provide a common language for all participants, and thus enable an equitable representation of diverse views (Al-Kodmany 2002). But the optimism of proponents of those tools (in particular, Web-based interactive maps) has also been countered by the complaint that if the public does not have easy access to such toolsfor example, because they lack the skills or opportunities to use themthe whole process becomes ineffectual (Kingston et al. 2000; Al-Kodmany 2000; Carver 2001). Another issue that has emerged more recently is the ability to elicit, represent, and handle what Kingston et al. (2000) call the fuzzy information which is in peoples minds but is difficult to represent on a map. Clearly, the incorporation of local knowledge and qualitative perceptions of space, place, and locality has become a major challenge of current research into visualization practice. Taking into consideration that much of the discussion has concentrated on how to feed local knowledge into the planning process, it is hardly surprising that ample critical attention has also been given to how the process itselfincluding the styles and tools of discussionmay shape the knowledge local people bring to the planning table. This would require, however, that local knowledge be thought of not as a resource, which can simply be tapped into, but as a (situated) process (i.e., something to be produced in the circumstances of a specific situation). These issues were the focus of the case study research presented in this article. In the next session, we outline the objectives of the research and the theoretical orientations, which have guided the case study design and analysis.

Examining Local Knowledge in Action

Also like much of the literature, we delved into the role of visualization tools in participatory planning practice, but from a somewhat different perspective. In this article, we are not going to evaluate those tools in terms of their practical usefulness, effectiveness, or deliberative potential, but rather we seek to illuminate how the tools themselves might influence the forms of knowledge that emerge. So, we take as a central theme the tension that may arise between, on one

hand, the map-based modes of representation to be found in disciplinary planning practice and, on the other, the application of knowledge to action that takes place among local people involved in that practice. By taking this approach, we also come to question how peoples capacity to bring their knowledge from the everyday into the planning domain might be affected by map-based visualization. As a starting point, we adopt the notion that local knowledge should be examined in action (Murdoch and Clark 1994). Given the socially situated nature of knowledge, we believe that some tentative insights into the above question can be found only by the study of actual processes and actions in their everyday context, that is, in situated practice. To be able to study people when their thinking is engaged in situated practicealso referred to as situated knowers and situated knowns (Yanow 2003)we observed a real-world setting of planning practice. During a Planning Day for the design of a city park in Antwerp, Belgium, more than 100 local residents engaged in small-group discussions organized around a map-based model in the format of an orthographic aerial photograph (thus using the Planning for Real method). The planning event made a compelling case because of the dual role of the participants as agents within this practice. On one hand, as readers of the map-based model, they had a particular way of looking at the planning situation imposed on them. On the other hand, as authors, they were expected to pin their planning suggestions onto the model, in fact acting on the spot as their own map makers. Adopting this planning event as a site-specific practice of both map reading and map making poses interesting methodological challenges for the researcher. In this double focus, visualization is seen not just as a tool for the transmission of information among members of the public and of the publics proposals back to the planners. Rather, this approach also highlights the ways in which communicative tools available to agents act both as a mode for expressing meaning (for example, their interpretation of the planning situation) and as a practical device for constituting such meaning (for example, through the tool-dependent nature of that interpretation). This obviously requires a methodological approach that enables those issues to be interrelated into an integrated picture, rather than considering them in isolation. For our purposes, we have drawn on insights from two theoretical perspectives: those focusing on meanings and their representations, and those focusing on the practice of mediated action. To understand what the application of local knowledge to action means in concrete termsin this case, local residents formulating planning proposalswe have turned to interpretative approaches that view human action as expressive of meaning. Applied in a planning or policy context, these emphasize the ways in which meanings are actively shaped and conveyed through relational dynamics (Fischer 2003;

446

Van Herzele & van Woerkum

Healey et al. 2003). The meaning of a story, for example, is not fixed but is determined by the context in which it is interpreted. It is located in commonsense references to shared experience (Fischer 2003, 164). All language, objects, and actions are potential carriers of meanings that are open to interpretation by all kinds of agents: decision makers and planners, the general public, and other stakeholders (Yanow 2000). At the same time, however, they are tools for the communication of those meanings, and through their use, existing meanings are recreated and extended, and new meanings are created (Gagliardi 1990; Edelman 1995; Yanow 2000). A significant application in the context of planning is Fischlers interpretative study (1995, 13-58) of symbolic representations of space. In this, he demonstrated how the specific way in which planners use a conventional form of representation (for instance, a perspective drawing) makes the representation suitable for conveying a specific, value-laden view of an area. This may, in turn, shape peoples approach to the problem and thereby influence decision making. The focus on meanings and their artifactual representations is a stimulating starting point in thinking about the ways that spaces and places in the cityand the planning problems associated with themcome to be understood and acted on in a given locality. Although in interpretative analysis such a meaning is seen as being (re)created in the interaction among artifactual representations, their makers intent, and their users interpretation, little attention has, however, been given to how these artifactual representations incorporate the communicative conditions for such interaction. As has been shown in experimental research, external representations (text, diagrams, and drawings) not only can be useful aids in learning and reasoning but also can affect the course and type of reasoning (see Cox 1999 for an overview). In some instances, the tools available can conflict with other forms of knowing. For example, in a study on childrens reasoning in elementary astronomy (Schoultz, Slj, and Wyndhamn 2001), the everyday knowledge inherent in language (sunrise and sunset) did not match the scientific knowledge stimulated by the provided cultural tool, a globe. Considering the tool-dependent nature of human reasoning and the ability of knowing, the representational view of human actionprevailing in many interpretative approaches in planningshould be complemented with the acknowledgment that the use and making of these tools are inherent parts of human action itself. Therefore, we have drawn on the notion of mediated action as it has been developed in sociocultural theory. This orientation is of particular interest to our study, because it is concerned with explicating how people rely on socially or culturally shared artifacts in practices of communication and learning. In accordance with this approach, we aim to explicate how in visualization practice, people rely on the tools available as devices for thinking

about and acting on the planning issues they are confronted with. According to Wertsch (1991, 119), the key to such an explication is the use of mediated action as a unit of analysis and those acting with mediational means as the relevant description of the agents of this action.

The Research Setting

The Planning for Real event under investigation was held in the context of the current process of transforming and reusing a former railway yard in Antwerp. The twenty-fourhectare open area is located on the north side of the city, between the historical center and the Port of Antwerp. The surrounding neighborhoods form part of the densely built city district of Antwerp North, housing more than 40,000 inhabitants. About 20 percent of the population has a non-EU nationality, which is more than double that of the city as a whole. Antwerp North is alive with countless little cafs, popular events, and artistic performances. This city district is, however, also where the highest rates of unemployment and poverty are found, and within the whole nineteenth-century belt of Antwerp, the area has also afforded the least attention in urban design. Hence, the closing of the railway site was seen as a unique opportunity for a design project that could turn the negative image of deprived neighborhoods into a positive one and so be important in the context of the whole city. In 2001, a visioning process for this area was established that aimed at reaching consensus on the future role of the area. The highly appreciated inputs from the public through the use of small discussion groups have been most helpful in developing and implementing the ambitious plan to create a city park in the area (Van Herzele 2004, 2005). In 2003, the visioning was followed by the design process, which started with an architectural competition. For a detailed description of the planning process, we refer to De Wever and Lambert (2003). In 2005, works of soil sanitation were carried out, and in the spring of 2006, the layout of the park began. Later on, a smaller part will be developed as a business area. The Planning for Real event was held at the preparation stage of the architectural competition. It was the clear purpose to generate extra input from the public into the design process. The City of Antwerp, as the organizer, invited all of the residents in the surrounding neighborhoods to the Planning Day, which was held on a Sunday afternoon in September 2002 in a community center close to the site. To make the participants familiar with the area, a site visit was organized for them before the actual planning workshops. More than 200 people participated in the entire event, out of which about 130 actually participated in the planning workshops. We observed a remarkable diversity of ages, gender, backgrounds, and lifestyles, but immigrant families were largely underrepresented.4 Because of the large number of

Local Knowledge in Visually Mediated Practice

447

participants, the workshops were organized in two consecutive sessions of approximately one and a half hours each. Professional staff members were on hand to provide explanations about the task and answer questions, but they did not take an active part in shaping the discussions. The Planning for Real method (Gibson 1994; Neighbourhood Initiatives Foundation 1995) was applied with a free interpretation, which means that the emphasis was on formulating suggestions for action, rather than setting priorities and strategies. Thirteen discussion groups of eight to fourteen participants were formed, and each group had its own table on which a Planning for Real model was placed. The initial model consisted of a basic large-scale mapan aerial photo of the planning site on a scale around 1:1000and a series of symbols, flags, pins, and strings that were spread out around it. On the flags, people could write their suggestions, and strings could be used, for example, to mark out desired footpaths. It was the central idea that, by placing their suggestions onto the model, the participants could indicate what they wanted to happen and where (e.g., a playground, parking areas, and trees). The participants were also given a worksheet containing a list of topics to be dealt with: underpasses and bridges, historical buildings, public transport, sports and recreation, arts and culture, activities for youngsters, water features, greenery, safety, and accessibility. So that professionals could interpret the results accurately, the participants were asked to provide more articulated comments about issues, as well as explanations for their suggestions in an accompanying notebook. The Planning for Real initiative provided the authors of this article with an opportunity to observe the public using the visualization tool in a real-world example of planning. All the discussions were recorded on audiotape (eighteen hours in total), and fragments of these were also videotaped.5 From the recorded material, we transcribed up to 139 pages of text related solely to the main tasks of the participants (i.e., skipping introductory notes, social talk about getting coffee, etc.). The data analysis was guided by the concept of mediated action as understood in sociocultural theory (Leontev 1978; Wertsch 1998). This implies that we focused primarily on two elements: agents and mediational means (cultural tools or artifacts), in particular how agents and tools combined to produce the actions identified. The analysis was organized into two steps. First, we examined how a number of actions could be distinguished in a meaningful way; also, we explored the interactions of participants with the visual artifacts (maps, flags, etc.). Second, we questioned how local knowledge emerged and was passed on in the sequences of action.

groups and the visualization tool available to them. In Leontevs sense of sociocultural theory, actions appear to be directed by a goal (1978, 63). This approach does not, however, assume that the goals are explicit. By engaging in ongoing action, the actor discovers what needs to be done, how it needs to be done, and what count as right or wrong, and feasible or infeasible, resolutions. In this sense, action is spontaneous and purposeful (Wagenaar and Cook 2003, 150). This applies in particular to the real-world setting of the planning event under consideration. The participants were given the task to make collective choices about what they actually wanted in the area. In practice, however, such a seemingly single task implies a complicated set of achievements. So the participants had to understand what the map stands for and what the planning situation is about. They had to find a way of working through and consider what they believed should be planned in the area. The multiple requirements imposed by the task at hand called for different types of action, which we identified and described on the basis of what was actually happening. Drawing on our observations and recordings of naturally occurring talk and interaction, we identified five main categories of action, which we have labeled orientation, exploration, claiming, reasoning, and composition (see table 1). The distinctions refer to the purpose of an action in relation to the task and were developed in repeated, comparative reading of the transcripts. Most groups began by focusing on a particular theme or area and then moved on, after making a decision, to the next theme or area. In this way, action chains appeared with a comparable sequence of orientation toward composition. In the following, we describe how the participants and the visualization tool combined to shape these actions (and how these were linked together) in essential ways.

Orientation
The participants at the beginning of the session had to learn the requirements of the task: what is the area to be planned? What has to be accomplished in the session? What has been decided and agreed, and what is still open for discussion? Orientation was necessary to start as well as progress with the task at hand. A special category was the groups orientation to the map, in particular the checking for reference points. Map reading is typically informed by what can be discovered when looking over the landscape from a birds-eye perspective and at a given map scale. In our case, the participants used the vantage point offered by the map to find the right location of different objects of importance: the boundaries of the area, the adjacent streets, and existing buildings. As such, the visualization tool introduced a geographical reading of the situation already from the beginning. This was typically accompanied by gestures such as pointing at the

Mediated Action
The starting points of the analysis were the actions performed for the accomplishment of the task tackled by the

448

Van Herzele & van Woerkum

Table 1. Categories of action.

Action Orientation Purpose Starting or progressing with the task at hand Familiarizing with the map Opening up the issues and the ways of perceiving them Example of Statement This is the Oranjestraat; there is the Biekorfstraat. So this must be the Klamperstraat. So now you have to go, as a pedestrian-if you are living here-all the way round via Schijnpoort to arrive at the Dam neighborhood, or otherwise right over the bridge. If you cannot walk properly, this is quite a job, isnt it? Here you should certainly have a passageway, and somewhere . . . If we have a passageway here, the people coming from the park can enter the existing infrastructure. What term shall we use for seniors? Agent-Tool Interactions Pointing at different locations and objects on the map Taking a birds-eye perspective of view Moving from one location or object to another Shifting different perspectives of view Entering the map space All of the above Acquiring objects All of the above

Exploration

Claiming Reasoning

Proposing certain interventions in the area Testing, and hereby enforcing or undermining a claim Demonstrating a proposed intervention onto the map

Composition

Translating claims into key words and symbols Arranging items on the map

map and the use of map-bound talk: many statements included a high proportion of deictic elements, such as this and that, and here and there (which could be found in the other categories of action as well).

Exploration
The participants chose certain locations identified on the mapa specific building or an adjacent streetas a starting point from which to explore the situation at hand: the condition of roads, the future of existing buildings, and so on. They attempted to discover the reality behind the mapthat is, complementing the map representation with various information that was not readily visible in itand color their observations in terms of good or bad (e.g., We have an underpass there, and it stinks and it is always full of litter). In this way, they opened up the issues of discussion as well as ways of perceiving or interpreting them. It was in the process of exploration that participants engaged in a most complex interaction with the visualization tool. Again, few statements were independent from the visualization artifact, and map reading, including frequent moves and jumps with the fingers from one location to another, was important. The point, however, at which one was seeing from when interpreting a certain planning issue was not solely the birds-eye perspective. Such a scopic position was frequently shifted to a view from the ground up, a view out of a window, and so on. By this occasion, some participants recalled the field visit they joined in a few hours before, but it could also be a prior experience. For example (in regard to how attractive trees are for people living in houses nearby): I

have worked here, and so I know what kind of view you have there. You can look at it but not through it. But clearly, it was not only past experience that extended map reading. Another interesting phenomenon was the use of practical experience actively made on the spot. It seemed as if participants actually entered the map space via certain reference points. From these entries, they started to imagine how it would be to walk or cycle on a certain path: for example, how inconvenient it would be to cycle so close to a tram rail or, when taking the dog for a walk, to be suddenly approached from behind by a cyclist. By doing so, they shifted roles occasionally, for example when they considered whether a less mobile resident (or someone looking to dispose his or her rubbish bags) would make the effort to climb a pedestrian bridge.

Claiming
The interpretation of the planning situation (regarding a certain area or topic) developed in the process of exploration became the basis from which the participants pursued their claims or proposals for intervention. It could be a specific solution, for example a small playground situated in a specific spot, or a more general proposal, such as the need to create places for the elderly. Claims could be stated in a definitive, explicit form (I want . . .), or they could refer to interventions that might be interesting (optional claims). Also, participants asked others about their specific preferences: And where do you live? Do you want a fountain? Quite often, shifting from exploration to claiming was a subtle move in which exploration involved an effort to portray a

Local Knowledge in Visually Mediated Practice

449

social situation in a way that justified a particular claim for intervention. For example, it was estimated that older people would often go with their grandchildren to the park, so you need something for both. How they arrived at a certain claim was not always explicit, however. Apparently, many claims got lost in the discussion, but some of these were picked up later in the process. It was notable, moreover, that when a particular decision emerged from a shared image of the planning situation or was discussed properly, the participants frequently indicated joint authorship (e.g., We want . . . or Our footpath). This sense of ownership stimulated them to undertake initiatives by themselves. One member expressed it thus: Tomorrow, Ill bring my spade and start digging!

Composition
Participants had to indicate, with strings and little flags, the proposed interventions on the map: where they would situate roads or certain destinations. They could write their ideas in a few words on the flags. They were also asked to justify the choices made in a notebook. We found that participants made suggestions as to how to fulfill this final task (e.g., which terms or symbols to use) as well as numerous short interactions concerning the practicalities involved (e.g., Where is the glue? and Are you managing, Sarah?). This practical work was most often dedicated to one or more members, which often led to different sequences of action within the same group; for example, whereas two members were still struggling with pins and thread when making a dog area, the others were already engaged in the next topic. In some instances, the way items were arranged on the map became a topic of discussion: elements were added or moved about until the result felt right. For example, at the end of the planning session, one group placed some additional fountains to achieve a more balanced situation.

Reasoning
Claims already made became the subject of (explicit) reasoning. In this, participants exchanged ideas and arguments to test a proposed intervention, and whether it fits or feels right. So they made an evaluation of the attractiveness of a certain solution (aesthetic quality, costs, and safety) or a prediction of what might happen. For example, the suggestion for a combined cycle and pedestrian path was rejected with the following statement: Oh, no, within two years you could be walking around with Kamiel [a baby], and then you would have to hold Kamiels hand firmly all the time, in case a bicycle approaches. In many instances, claims were tested in the process of their making. This was most evident when (optional) claims were made on the spot:
A: I was actually thinking: if we locate such a little playground close to the passages then it will be more convenient for people who . . . B: Here you should certainly have one, and somewhere . . . C: So not too close to one another! A: And if we place another one here, near the water tower? C: That looks quite narrow, doesnt it?

Local Knowledge in Mediated Action

We now come to our main subject: how local knowledge emerged and was passed on in the sequences of action. As we have stressed already, the value of local knowledge lies in the relation to its context.6 Some of the local residents comments show that they were well aware of the context-dependent nature of reasoning and knowing, for example:
A: But I think that those people living there in that neighborhood, those people have brilliant ideas. B: But they are not here. We have to put down our own brilliant ideas.

A striking feature in this was the jumping quickly from one location to another. As a result, very few issues were treated with any continuity or depth. In a few instances, reference was also made to other places in the city, such as We already have a stupid lake in the city park. It is nothing . . . two swans that . . . It must be noted here that quite often, the groups simply chose a single members (undefended) claim. As long as a given suggestion was plausible with the shared image, the group found it acceptable, except when they felt it was not practicable (e.g., too high or too expensive). As a result, in many action chains, no explicit reasons were provided.

Van Leeuwen (2005, 109) also noted that knowledge is selective, and what it selects depends on the context that has informed and fostered the knowledge. In this sense, context is productive (Thrift 1996, 43) but not necessarily local. In a real-world situation, it is often not possible to distinguish between what knowledge is acquired locally and what is not. For example, the reason to reject the claim for a combined cycle and pedestrian pathYou would have to hold Kamiels hand firmly all the time, in case a bicycle approachescould be based on local experience, but it could equally be attributed to lived experience elsewhere. Also, it could be made on the spot in the flow of action, apart from any concrete experience. Given our particular focus on planning practice, we will regard the planning eventwith its own purposes, social arrangements, and tools availableas a site of knowledge selection, a productive locale.7 In this, not only is local knowledge imported from one context (neighborhood life)

450

Van Herzele & van Woerkum

to the other (the planning event) in light of the circumstances of the latter context, but also the context of the planning event is likely to function as a site for the validation, negotiation, and translation of existing knowledge, as well the production of new knowledge. Thinking of knowledge as a processthat is, something to be produced, or always becoming or emergingrather than as a resource, the following observations are highlighted. The first observation concerns the interweaving of knowledge and action. The distinct types of actions, together with the ways these were interconnected within the action chain, made different demands on the participants knowledge. For example, the orientation comments (e.g., This is the Oranjestraat; there is the Biekorfstraat. So this must be the Klamperstraat) elicit peoples knowledge of specific locations. In general, exploration was the favorite action that brought in local knowledge. It might be specific information, for example referring to the history of the place: This is the shunting station, with its flaming red bricks and with those turrets; its the same construction as the station here, its the same age. Making statements about what is, was, and has been the case was evident in a large proportion of all contributions. Sometimes, they indicated where somebody was living. From this, they could start an empathic script about what such a person might be confronted with: I know somebody there, and he should go there with a wheelchair. Given the purpose of explorationthat is, to reach understandingboth the higher level of specification and the explicit way that local knowledge emerged here were hardly surprising. By embedding bits of local knowledge into the planning frame (most of the participants comments were very short, one sentence or even a close), they gradually built up a shared image of the planning situation. We also noted, however, that most of these specific knowledge contributions were relegated to the background in some way and evoked hardly any debate, and even the longer inputs seemed to stand alone. Only when the discussion was tied to reaching a specific decision, which was most evident when participants shifted from one action to another, did local knowledge appear to play a clear role in the dynamic of actions. This was most evident in the interaction between exploration and claiming:
And that bridge of the Noorderlaan, they renovated it just two years ago. . . . [I]f we have to dispose of that, well, I think it is a waste of money. So much is done and then demolished again.

more general practical wisdom or common sense emerged here (So much is done and then demolished again). Typically, group members lent weight to suggestions by means of practical reasoning. In the following example, one group had the idea to remove a line of trees to create space for a cycle path:
A: [We should do] away with the poplars! B: Right. A: And there . . . a cycle path next to the park. C: After all, a park comes in the place. D: And those trees, they just serve for placing garbage against them. C: The trees [should be taken] out. A: A cycle path . . . C: Yes, tomorrow we shall begin with it. D: The trees out! E: Oh yeah, we get a whole park!

Note that in the above example, an element of reasoning was apparent as well. As mentioned previously, the purpose of reasoning was to evaluate or test claims already made. It was especially in the dynamics between claiming and reasoning that we observed a low level of specification. Often, a

The second observation concerns the relationship between knowledge and map-based representation, the medium through which the actions were performed. By far, the greatest share of explicit knowledge contributions was related to the objects to be found on the map (or those to be put on), or the functions that group members connected to these objects. They added elements to the representation, most notably evaluations, functions, and legitimations. A special feature here was an aesthetic appreciation of certain objects in the area, both positive and negative; for example, I would preserve the Noorderlaan [an avenue on a bridge], since there is a very nice faade here. Also, we scarcely found reference to what was beyond the planning sites boundaries.8 It was only on a few occasions that other places were mentioned. All this gives the impression that we missed a great deal of the broader perspective from which the park was seen. This is not to say, however, that the participants were not talking from their own situation. Whether explicitly or not, they actually referred to what they and others (the children, the elderly and disabled, etc.) are likely to experience on a day-to-day basis. The point is that, given the highly structured frame of this practicepeople were not asked to tell their stories and give their views in their own termsthe local knowledge had to be embedded in the flow of actions. In particular, local knowledge had to be placed, or translated, within the structured way of seeing imposed by the map, including its scale, objects, boundaries, and perspective of view. Third, and related to the previous observations, we noted that the content of the knowledge contributions was most often connected to group members shared, everyday experience. In this respect, they tended to pay more attention to information readily recognizable to most of them (for instance, the behavior of dog owners) to the neglect of some specialized although interesting information provided by some individuals (for instance, about local folklore in the

Local Knowledge in Visually Mediated Practice

451

past). As noted previously, the visualization tool played a central role throughout social interaction. All eyes were directed to the map most of the time, as were the group members body movements and gestures. In such a setting, it was important indeed to establish together just what it was that they all saw. Making and sharing knowledge actively on the spot were particularly helpful in sustaining a conversation in which everybody could take part. As noted before, shared situational assessment and common authorship over decisions were important, and everyday knowledge was more supportive to this.9

Local Knowledge in Visually Mediated Practice

We will now integrate our findings to discuss the significance of local knowledge in visualization practice. Put in concrete terms, we question to what extent the planning suggestions placed onto the map were based on what Yanow (2004) termed an intimate familiarity with and understanding of the particulars of the local situation. In our transcriptions, we found one striking example underlining the critical relevance of this question. One participant did not come from the area itself but was introduced by a resident whom she was visiting at the time. She made an explicit comment on her position: I may not be from here, butcome onI say what I think. This person had an active role in the interactions of the group, which seemed to be quite unproblematic to the others. In fact, everybody could join in the discussions. Moreover, the actions involved produced a certain practice found not only in Planning for Real but also in play that children are familiar with: building a house together with small building blocks or making a sand castle on the beach. In these kinds of joint activity, the focus is broadly on doing. Reasoning or thinking about what they are doing, and more specifically exploring the understanding that underlies their practical decisions, may be limited through the pace of the activity. Moreover, just as the sand castle must be built before the tide turns, so a planning event is limited in duration and groups are under pressure to produce tangible outputs, which was typically reflected at the end of an action chain (We already have two flags!).10 In this kind of activity, the map-based artifact acts not only as a closed or static representation, but also as an artifact in the making, an evolving product of the activity. This brings us to the participants role as map makers and the kind of knowledge required in the advancement of the task. An activity that is organized around an artifact in the making is likely to evoke knowledge that is functional, highly practical, and close to action, that is, it develops in close relationship with the activity itself (see also Ciborra and Lanzara 1990). Unlike local knowledge as we understand itknowledge that

is gradually established from within the social realities in a localitythe knowledge that surfaced in the discussions was not much colored by neighborhood life, history, and so on. Instead of resting on a solid background of insiders information, this kind of knowing was immediate, highly responsive to the opportunities at hand, and perhaps short-lived. As we observed, much of this knowledge was communicated by doing, moving fingers over the area, or through what Schn (1982, 95-102) called spatial action language. In this, agents often act on a situation created by earlier spatial moves or choices: If you remove this, then you suddenly get a lot more space to create a pleasant corner there. As thinking and talking develop in the spatial moves enacted by the agents (jumping from one location to another, changing perspectives, and walking the map), such a spatial action knowledge fits well into the dynamics of agenttool interaction and makes an effective contribution by completing the sequence of actions. By contrast, more stable forms of knowledge (e.g., what is held in memory) appear to be less integrated in those dynamics, which might explain the isolated position of locally based expertise in the discussions and, as a consequence, the minor impact this has had on decision making. But obviously, there was more at stake when the residents engaged in the visually mediated practice. There is sometimes criticism that geographical visualization such as maps imposes an object-centered view of spaces, that is, a view of spaces as areas with boundaries within which events occur, rather than being shaped through social interactions within and between places (Shields 1991; Graham and Healey 1999; Richardson and Jensen 2003). The practice outlined in our study is a further reminder that map-based representation including the flags and strings indicating locationstends to promote what Graham and Healey (1999) called an objectified vision of space. Maps are full of references and indications, but they are not peopled. As Chambers (1993, 188) noted,
They permit us to grasp an outline, a shape, some sort of location, but not the contexts, cultures, histories, languages, experiences, desires and hopes that course through the urban body. The latter pierce the logic of topography and spill over the edges of the map.

In the sessions studied, the space represented in the map was mainly read as an asset of objects, starting with the where of things, for example where the footpaths should be located, and moving on to what these could offer to the group (and to others not present): for example, what functions could be given to a particular building. Interestingly, visualization was not provided by geographical representation alone. In their role of map makers, the local residents developed their own form of visualization, and they enriched and defined the map representation in new, creative ways. As outlined previously, they used various techniques,

452

Van Herzele & van Woerkum

including changing perspective, taking the role of others, and engaging in bodily experience to complete the map representation. The map invited them to have a virtual experience of the area (walking along a path, climbing on a bridge, and so on) so as to propose practical solutions to match the situation at hand. Although this exercise was helpful in shaping planning suggestions (through the social interactions they were likely to expect in the area), these interactions mainly took place within the boundaries of the planning site. Such a restricted imagery also poses important limitations on what contributions local knowledge may bring to the planning table. According to Haraway (1991), the key practice that grounds all knowledge is position, or where to see from. Despite the many perspectives taken when interpreting or deciding on a certain planning issue, largely neglected was actually the one from the surrounding neighborhoods. It is precisely the capacity to see from these peripheries that can make a connection between the residents local knowledge and the evolving artifact. So, the limitation of local knowledge as described so far raises the question of what may have been left out. As previously noted, the knowledge that emerged was highly practical and close to action, and it was closely related to definable objects to be discovered in or added to the map-based representation (evaluations, functions, etc.). What was largely missing was an exploration of the meaning of the area for residents, which is indeed a subject that could stimulate much discussion. As an illustration of this potential, we refer to a previous planning event using small-group discussions with local people in the same area (see Van Herzele 2004). Here, the participants deliberately balanced their multiple arguments concerning the wider and the local, the past and the future, and the provisional and the planned. In this way, they were able to shape a common image of the future of the park. This image was much concerned with the cultural identities of the neighborhoods, the perceived relationships of local lifestyles with those in the rest of the city, and how a new city park could affect local life strategies. The multiple links with neighborhood life provided useful material for city planners to make sense of important choices. Hence, when we talk of stimulating the application of local knowledge in planning, it is a matter of stimulating meaningful linkages to be created and, importantly, to make them explicit in discussion. In everyday life, it is the narrative form of the story, which is the primary means of giving meaning to complex social phenomena (Kaplan 1993; van Woerkum 2002; Fischer 2003). In addition, recent emphases on ordinarylanguage dialogue and storytelling link up with the emerging turn to discourse and argumentation in the social and policy sciences (Fischer 2000, 179). Some prior experiences in urban design, however (a most notable and early example being Randy Hesters sacred places),11 have shown that visualization tools may also contribute in creating connections with the distinct meanings that local people attach to places. These

examples contrast, however, with the increasing tendency to use visualization as the primary mode of interaction with community participants.

Conclusion
In this article, we took as a central theme the special role that visualization artifacts may play in mediated action. Taking a real-world example of practice, it was our intention to explain how what happened was possible and took place. The article is based on one specific case and on a specific application of the Planning for Real method. Yet we believe we have shown plausibly that the phenomena we have encountered could be found elsewhere. Our case represents a typical example of the currently common practice of map-centered public participation. In this respect, Planning for Real is not the only, yet one of the most popular techniques using a hands-on visualization tool. As a whole, our study has encouraged attention to the explanatory potential of regarding local knowledge as a processsomething that is produced in interaction with practice and the tools available in that practicerather than as a resource. Furthermore, like Vanessa Watson (2002), we assume that documented accounts of planning practice can help learn from practice to inform practice. The building of a mental repertoire of such cases can provide the basis for the kind of expert judgment required in the day-to-day work of planners (Watson 2002). We saw earlier that most discussions of visualization in planning practice view it in terms of how it empowers local residents to bring their views to the planning table. There is little doubt that such a focus is important when trying to improve those tools technically or adapting them to a given institutional setting. From the study presented here, however, we can conclude that a narrow focus on the kinds of empowerment provided by such tools gives us only a partial picture. As James Wertsch (1998) argued, it does so because it overlooks a countervailing, although equally inherent, characteristic of mediational means, namely, that they constrain or limit the forms of action we undertake. Although the issue of empowerment was beyond the scope of our study, the findings do confirm a two-sided notion of visualization. On one hand, we suggest that commonly adopted visualization artifacts in the format of maps, models, and computer images, when applied in an interactive setting, may support local residents in making their planning proposals. The structuring properties of a mediation toolspatial information and common reference points, as well as the participants roles and the main topics of conversation, are all built into the Planning for Real toolkitenable the planning task to be completed efficiently. Moreover, apart from providing structure to their actions and choices, visualization invites people to be engaged in a concrete and inclusive way, providing them with a certain pride and sense of ownership over their contributions.

Local Knowledge in Visually Mediated Practice

453

On the other hand, structured ways of representation also limit the horizons of what can be thought and talked about. Maps in particular have been criticized for imposing an object-centered view of spaces, resulting in a lack of sufficient attention to the social relations that give meaning to a particular space. People are invited to act in a visual space, and, therefore, they are inclined to think and speak about the visual aspects of their environment. Interestingly, in our study, the map prompted a rather varied imagery leading to a richer understanding of the space and place. For example, through virtually or bodily entering the map and experiencing the area with all the senses, the residents were able to demonstrate a host of social interactions shaping the future park. Equally, however, entering the map limited the territory of their experience to within that maps boundaries and, most notably, the boundaries of the planning site, the maps focal point. On the basis of our explorative analysis, we suggest that the use of visualization tools may shape peoples knowing in at least three ways. First, the visualization artifact sets the spatial boundaries and central focus of the imagination that agents can use when entering and experiencing the map space. In this way, the peripheral position (the neighborhoods), which is the setting for a major part of local knowledge, gets ample attention from the agents various perspectives. Second, it follows from our study that knowledge is deeply conditioned by the dynamic of actions that develop around a visualization artifact. In this, the spatial action knowledge that readily develops within the activity itself tends to background the special kind of knowledge only local residents hold. Third, and related, visualization tools set the terms of expression, in that agents engage in map-bound talk that gives credence to their suggestions but not necessarily social meaning. These findings raise important issues that planners should consider when they aim to strive for the meaningful participation of local people. In particular, we highlight the needs to regard visualization tools in the context of their dual impact of both enabling and constraining peoples knowing, and, likewise, to interpret those peoples contributions in light of the mediation tools available to them. In this respect, the suggestion being made here is that visualization tools, although bringing people closer to the planning process, also disconnect them from their local knowledge base. As outlined above, such a disconnection takes on a variety of forms. The key point, however, is that the link between local knowledge and mediated practice becomes blurred.

Notes
1. Town planners in Sweden have gradually turned their interests to public participation as a knowledge process in its own right, that is, a participatory design activity in which all actors are

regarded as experts and their participation is therefore based on their relevant knowledge, rather than their roles as representatives of different interests (Rehal and Birgersson 2005). 2. We also refer here to the anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1983), who introduced the term local knowledge and defined it as practical, collective and strongly rooted in a particular place. Since that time, the concept has had an amazing career both in research and among development experts and politicians (Fischer 2000; Diawara 2000). Local or contextual knowledge, however, also has a long-standing place in planning. Already in the 1960s and 1970s, scholars like Gans (1968), Friedmann (1973), Appleyard (1976), and Hester (1975) have warned against the adverse impact of planning efforts that ignore peoples place-based knowledge and experience. The growing recognition of local knowledge since that time has provided fertile ground for the development of participatory practices and tools aimed at producing a deeper contextual understanding of the planning situation. 3. Planning for Real (PFR) is a common application using a hands-on geographically based visualization tool for creating an initial vision. PFR has been developed by the Neighbourhood Initiatives Foundations (1995) in the United Kingdom as a means of involving local people more closely in environmental planning (Gibson 1994). Basically, the approach seeks to invite local people to register their views about particular issues by placing flags with written comments onto appropriate locations on the map or model. PFR has been adapted for merging local knowledge with spatial information into conservation and development projects in developing countries (Rambaldi and Callos-Tarr 2001). A Webbased (virtual) version of the physical PFR model has been developed in the framework of Public Participation GIS (Kingston et al. 2000). 4. There are well-known difficulties in gaining the confidence of migrant populations in formal meetings. This experience is reflected, for example, in research on public participation efforts in neighborhoods of various European cities (Chanan 1992). Several reasons have been mentioned: the fact that some migrant groups do not have full citizen rights in their countries of settlement, the fact that they have not mastered the language of this country, or just simply that they have more pressing needs than thinking about a city park. 5. It was the initial intention to use the material to test the findings of a previous study on the interpretive frames that laypeople use when reasoning in a planning situation (see Van Herzele 2004). We found the same categories, however, with a considerably greater proportion of their reasoning linked to free experience of use and only a small proportion linked from context to object. It was also noticeable that the reasoning itself, which was expressed so forcefully in the discussion groups of the previous study, was put forward so weakly during the discussions of this Planning Day. 6. Local context is not the same for all social groups. When some relevant groups are underrepresented (in this case, ethnic groups), a first-selection effect is likely to occur: the knowledge held by those attending the planning event. 7. When discussing the notion of context, Thrift (1996, 43) refers to the idea of a productive locale as it has been used in the sociology of science to describe the knowledge produced in the experimental laboratory. 8. This is remarkable, given that the larger part of the surrounding neighborhoods was visible on the map. Also, maps at a variety of scales were available (a street plan, a spatial structure plan, etc.), and photographs with examples of other parks were hung on the walls. Yet all these materials got ample attention. Instead, the participants were concentrated on the aerial photograph they were given to work with.

454

Van Herzele & van Woerkum

9. Experimental research on small-group decision making suggests that groups tend to use information that is already commonly shared, downplaying unique information held by specific individuals that could arguably improve the decision (Gigone and Hastie 1993). 10. Experimental studies into group decision making have pointed out that time pressure leads group members to focus on a restricted range of task-relevant cues and to adopt task completion as their major interaction objective. From a decision-making experiment in which time pressure was manipulated, Kelly and Loving (2004) suggest that recall of information learned prior to group discussion did not differ by time pressure condition. Instead, information restriction was explained by group members filtering out what they judged to be less important information during group discussion and decision making. 11. Hester and McNally have developed numerous participatory design techniques that involve posing a question about place meaning (Hester 1984), for example uncovering valued (or sacred) places by means of interviews. Their approach implies the recognition that there are certain things that need to be exhibited and discussed before we can move forward on design thinking. The professionals spend much time in listening to the local residents, and they take on the task of embedding the local knowledge in the map-based representation.

References
Al-Kodmany, Kheir. 2000. Public participation: Technology and democracy. Journal of Architectural Education 53 (4): 220-28. . 2002. Visualization tools and methods in community planning: From freehand sketches to virtual reality. Journal of Planning Literature 17 (2): 189-211. Appleyard, Donald. 1976. Planning a pluralist city: Conflicting realities in Ciudad Guayana. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Carver, Steve. 2001. Participation and geographical information. Paper presented at the ESF-NSF Workshop on Access to Geographic Information and Participatory Approaches Using Geographic Information, Spoleto, Italy, 6-8 December. Chambers, Ian. 1993. Cities without maps. In Mapping the futures: Local culture, global change, ed. Jon Bird, Barry Curtis, Tim Putman, George Robertson, and Lisa Tickner. London: Routledge. Chanan, Gabriel. 1992. Out of the shadows: Local community action and the European community. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission. Ciborra, Claudio U., and Giovan Francesco Lanzara. 1990. Designing dynamic artifacts: Computer systems as formative contexts. In Symbols and artifacts: Views of the corporate landscape, ed. Pasquale Gagliardi. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Corburn, Jason. 2003. Bringing local knowledge into environmental decision-making. Journal of Planning Education and Research 22:420-33. Cox, Richard. 1999. Representation construction, externalized cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction 9:343-63. De Wever, Hardwin, and Ellen Lambert. 2003. Antwerp, Spoor Noord: A city park off the beaten tracks. Ghent: Ludion. Diawara, Mamadou. 2000. Globalization, development politics and local knowledge. International Sociology 15 (2): 361-71. Edelman, Murray. 1995. From art to politics: How artistic creations shape political conceptions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fischer, Frank. 2000. Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press . 2003. Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fischler, Raphal. 1995. Strategy and history in professional practice: Planning as world making. In Spatial practices: Critical explorations in social/spatial theory, ed. Helen Liggett and David C. Perry. London: Sage. Friedmann, John. 1973. Retracking America. New York, Anchor. Gagliardi, Pasquale. 1990. Artifacts as pathways and remains of organizational life. In Symbols and artifacts: Views of the corporate landscape, ed. Pasquale Gagliardi. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Gans, Herbert J. 1968. People and plans. New York: Basic Books. Geertz, Clifford. 1983. Local knowledge. New York: Basic Books. Gibson, Tony. 1994. Showing what you mean (not just talking about it). PRA Notes 21:41-47. Gigone, D., and R. Hastie. 1993. The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment. Journal of Personal Social Psychology 65:959-74. Graham, Stephen, and Patsy Healey. 1999. Relational concepts of space and place: Issues for planning theory and practice. European Planning Studies 7 (5): 623-46. Haraway, Donna J. 1991. Simians, cyborgs and women. London: Free Press. Healey, Patsy. 1999. Institutional analysis, communicative planning, and shaping places. Journal of Planning Education and Research 19(2): 111-21. Healey, Patsy, Claudio de Magalhaes, Ali Madanipour, and John Pendlebury. 2003. Place, identity and local politics: Analysing initiatives in deliberative governance. In Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society, ed. Maarten A. Hajer and Hendrik Wagenaar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hester, Randolph T. 1975. Warning: Ivory tower designers may be hazardous to your neighborhoods health. Landscape Architecture (July): 296-303. . 1984. Planning neighborhood space with people. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. . 1990. Participation with a view: A refrain with a view. Places 12 (2): 12-25. Innes, Judith E. 1990. Knowledge and public policy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Kaplan, Thomas J. 1993. Reading policy narratives: Beginnings, middles, and ends. In The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning, ed. Frank Fischer and John Forester. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Kelly Janice R., and Timothy J. Loving. 2004. Time pressure and group performance: Exploring underlying processes in the attention focus model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40:185-98. Kingston, Richard, Steve Carver, A. Evans, and I. Turton. 2000. Web-based public participation geographical information systems: An aid to local environmental decision-making. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 24:109-25. Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Leontev, Alexei N. 1978. Activity, consciousness and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Murdoch, Jonathan, and Judy Clark. 1994. Sustainable knowledge. Geoforum 25 (2): 115-32. Neighbourhood Initiatives Foundation. 1995. A practical handbook for Planning for Real consultation exercise. Telford, UK: Neighbourhood Initiatives Foundation. Rambaldi, G., and J. Callos-Tarr. 2001. Participatory 3-D modeling: Bridging the gap between communities and GIS technology. Paper presented at the international workshop Participatory Technology Development and Local Knowledge for Sustainable Land Use in Southeast Asia, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 6-7 June. Rehal, Saddek, and Lisbeth Birgersson. 2005. What happens when imagery is used to complement speech in dialogues involving changing the built environment? Paper presented

Local Knowledge in Visually Mediated Practice

455

at the International Conference for Integrating Urban Knowledge & Practice, Gothenburg, Sweden, May 29June 3. Richardson, Tim, and Ole B. Jensen. 2003. Linking discourse and space: Towards a cultural sociology of space in analyzing spatial policy discourses. Urban Studies 40 (1): 7-22. Sandercock, Leonie. 1998. The death of modernist planning: Radical praxis for a postmodern age. In Cities for citizens: Planning and the rise of civil society in a global age, ed. Mike Douglas and John Friedmann. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Schn, Donald A. 1982. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Schoultz, Jan, Roger Slj, and Jan Wyndhamn. 2002. Heavenly talk: Discourse, artifacts, and childrens understanding of elementary astronomy. Human Development 2001 (44): 103-18. Shields, Rob. 1991. Places on the margin: Alternative geographies of modernity. London: Routledge. Shotter, John. 1993. Conversational realities: Constructing life through language. London: Sage. Thrift, Nigel. 1996. Spatial formations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Van Herzele, Ann. 2004. Local knowledge in action: Valuing nonprofessional reasoning in the planning process. Journal of Planning Education and Research 24 (2): 197-212. . 2005. Challenges of neighbourhood participation in cityscale greenspace planning. In COST Action E12 Urban Forests and Trees, ed. Thomas B. Randrup, Cecil C. Konijnendijk, Tim Christophersen, and Kjell Nilsson. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission.

van Leeuwen, Theo. 2005. Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge. van Woerkum, Cees. 2002. Orality in environmental planning. European Environment 12:160-72. Vygotsky, Lev S. [1931] 1987. Thinking and speech. New York: Plenum. Wagenaar, Hendrik, and S. D. Noam Cook. 2003. Understanding policy practices: Action, dialectic and deliberation in policy analysis. In Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society, ed. Maarten A. Hajer and Hendrik Wagenaar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wates, Nick. 2000. The community planning handbook. London: Earthscan. Watson, Vanessa. 2002. Do we learn from planning practice? The contributions of the practice movement to planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research 22:178-87. Wertsch, James V. 1991. Voices of the mind: A socio-cultural approach to mediated action. London: Harvester Wheatsheath. . 1998. Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press. Yanow, Dvora. 2000. Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. . 2003. Accessing local knowledge. In Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society, ed. Maarten A. Hajer and Hendrik Wagenaar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . 2004. Translating local knowledge at organizational peripheries. British Journal of Management 15:S9-S25.