1. Rethinking planning processes as role-systems – puzzling towards playful spaces of transformation
Dr. Christian Lamker
AESOP Planning and Complexity 16th meeting Adaptive Planning for Spatial Transformation, Groningen
Session “Understanding complexity: political dynamics & planners’ roles” | Wed, 23 May 2018

2. Planning in complex systems
Uncertainties, non-linear and disruptive processes (Innes/Booher 2010; Zandvoort et al. 2018)
No single or exclusive story (Cilliers 1998)
Systems are themselves transformative and open to change (Byrne 2012; de Roo 2017)
complex system in a functionally differentiated society
transformative social action that shapes future trajectories of complex systems (Byrne 2012; de Roo 2017)
Multiplicity of doing planning (van Assche/Verschraegen 2008)
Impossibility to reduce uncertainties (Lamker 2016; Rauws 2017)
Complexity
Planning

3. Planning processes as role-systems
Paradox society: planning vs. utopia? (Luhmann 1997: 136, 1078 f.)
Planning: action and reflection around ways of organising space (van Assche et al. 2017: 223)
Acting between intentional planning, purposeful experimentation and spontaneous change (Roo 2017)
Never gains a complete overview, constantly changing ist role(s) and redefining itself (van Assche/Verschraegen 2008: 280)
Potentials of small interventions and transformative practices (Rauws 2017; Wezemael 2010)
Roles = mechanism to reduce complexity and for understanding, outreaching and succeeding against the impossibility of communication (Luhmann 1983; 1987; 1997)

4. Developing roles
Expected behavioural patterns beyond individual persons (social roles or leadership roles)
Bridge between personal and social systems  reducing personal motivations and social determinations (Luhmann 1983: 251f.)
Translates complexity towards operationalised terms that are practical within planning processes (Luhmann 1970: 28; Lamker 2016)

5. Use of roles
Descriptive
Perspective on dynamics in planning processes: deductive (e. g. Lamker 2016); or inductive (e. g. Hoch 1994; Sehested 2009)
Analytical/
explanatory
Understanding divergent planning actions and civic engagement (e. g. Wittmayer et al. 2017; Bisschops/Beunen 2018)
Teaching planning theory (e. g. Olesen 2018)
Normative/
prescriptive
Demands for good planning processes (e. g. Kampelmann et al. 2017; Rauws 2017)
Ways of planning engagement (e. g. Fox-Rogers/Murphy 2016; Sager 2016)
Exploratory
Exploring ways of thinking and acting / playing with alternatives (e. g. Innes/Booher 1999)

6. Using roles for exploration: thinking in role-plays
Playing
Purposive procedure that opens up options beyond the known and ordered (Dell 2014)
Intended to challenge thinking & acting of participant‘s daily lifes; triggering dialogue and learning processes (Innes/Booher 1999)
Playful work with processes (Dell 2014): Non-linear, non-predictable – and also motivational, emotional and transformative
Role-playing
changes players, their knowledge and potential actions: „games without frontiers“ (Innes/Booher 1999)
Improvisation with precast roles to gain stability (Dell 2014; Stark et al. 2017)
Roles as playing rules (possible behaviours) within a playing environment (background, questions): easy to grasp, to use and to expand

7. Using roles for exploration: thinking in role-plays
Experimental role-play in Wuppertal (Sept 2017), processes of post-growth planning
strong and active neighborhood, vacant site close to self-organised community centre „Utopiastadt“
Goal: develop a process and think think through this opportunity in one role
Provided: headline, short storyline and 4-6 possible behaviours (as verbs)
Experiences

8. Using roles for exploration: thinking in role-plays
Roles make it possible to think different to one’s own position and expected behavioural patterns.
Roles bridge across different backgrounds, knowledge and prior experiences.
The more facts given, the less creative role thinking was possible.
Taken roles get increasingly difficult to change.
Insights
Role card

9. Playful role-puzzling (?)
Plausible metaphor/narrative: Trial-and-error process with non-linear parts, experimentation and failures
Collaborative practice: jointly creating a shared picture about the future and how to get there (Innes/Booher 2010)
Puzzling as continuous action and reflection with unfolding of potentialities
Puzzle
pieces for experimentation and exploring alternative ways of thinking (and acting)
Groundwork for responsive mutual communication
Open for emergence and non-linear changes as positive qualities
Strengthening planning for social and spatial transformations
Playful puzzling

10. Thank you!
Dr. Christian Lamker
TU Dortmund University
Department of Spatial Planning and Planning Theory
Skype: christian.lamker
Source: woodleywonderworks, flickr.com
Work towards role-reflective, motivational and emotional spaces of dialogue!