A Habermasian Analysis of Comprehensive Urban Planning

1
A Habermasian Analysis of Comprehensive
Urban Planning ANZSYS/Managing the Complex V
Dec 5-7 2005
James Sheffield Department of Information Systems
and Operations Management University of Auckland
2
Agenda

• Research problem and objectives
• Theory building -Developing a theory of design
• Theory testing - Methodology and results
• Conclusion

3
The Research Problem - Is motivated by conflict
in group decision making
Conflict!
4
Key Issues

• Research Problem
• Whose interpretation should determine success of
  group decision-making in comprehensive urban
  planning?
• The issues are complex and the stakeholders
  interests are unresolved
• Participants are contesting the nature of the
  issues and the profile of the decision task is
  therefore hidden
• Interaction on the issues has a history of
  confusion, disagreement, conflict and the
  exercise of power
• Solution approach
• The meeting is seen as the occasion for inquiry.
• Design theory in the form of an inquiring system
  is developed and tested.
• But

Is conflict reduced?
5
Previous research in GSS (Group Support Systems)
does not include a theory of design

• Only one reference to design theory or inquiry in
  200 papers
• Often the spirit (of multi-user GSS) is to
  promote what Habermas terms ideal speech that
  is, communication
• ..to ensure that (a) all voices in any way
  relevant can get a hearing, and that (b) the best
  arguments we have in our present state of
  knowledge are brought to bear, and that (c)
  disagreement or agreement on the part of the
  participants follows only from the force of the
  better argument and no other force (Habermas and
  Nielsen 1990).
• Source Dennis and Garfield (2003)

6
Research Objectives

• Theory building
• RO1. Develop design theory in the form of an
  inquiring system
• RO2. Specialize the design theory for the domain
  of strategic planning
• Theory testing
• RO3. Measure participants satisfaction and
  performance in a facilitated, electronically-suppo
  rted group decision making meeting
• RO4. Explain why framing this electronically-suppo
  rted intervention as an instance of the design
  theory reduces participants confusion and
  conflict about preferences for scenarios

7
Theory Building
RO1. Develop design theory in the form of an
inquiring system
Three Aspects of The Habermasian Inquiring
System (Sheffield 2004, 2005a,b Guo
and Sheffield 2006a,b)
8
RO1. Architecture of The Habermasian Inquiring
System
Intentions
Outcomes
9
RO1. Discourses in The Habermasian Inquiring
System
Personal commitment (validated by truthfulness)
to...
an interpersonal consensus (validated by
rightness) for...
technical excellence (validated by objective
truth)
Validity Claims
Outcomes
Intentions
The purpose of The Habermasian Inquiring System
is to develop and test the coherence among
intentions and outcomes via the gold standard of
ideal speech ie, social actors claims to valid
technical, interpersonal and personal knowledge
10
RO2. Specialize the design theory for the domain
of strategic planning
6. Enactment Goal Expressions of degrees of
commitment to action by individuals and project
groups
1. Envisioning Goal Expression of concerns and
issues motivating each stakeholder
Personal commitment (validated by truthfulness)
to..
5. Evaluate alternative scenarios Goal Obtain
consensus on the best performing scenario
..an interpersonal consensus (validated by
rightness)..
2. Objective setting Goal Obtain
consensus on (smart) objectives
..for technical excellence (validated by
objective truth)
4 Generate alternative scenarios Goal Establish
well-defined packages of policy options and the
criteria for choosing among them
3. Generating options for mutual gain
Goal Surface many different possible
actions to achieve objectives
Intentions
Outcomes
Validity Claims
The purpose of the mid-range VC-Model is to
develop and test the coherence among intentions
and outcomes via the gold standard of ideal
speech - in the context of
strategic planning
11
Theory Testing

• 1. The Habermasian Inquiring System theory of
  design is tested via its ability to reduce
  confusion and conflict in strategic urban
  planning
• 2. During the study representatives of
  territorial and regional authorities meet to
  evaluate a comprehensive urban plan prepared by
  the regional council over a seven-year period
• 3. The decision making meeting is facilitated and
  electronically-supported (RO3)
• 4. The central phenomenon is participants
  confusion and conflict about preferences for
  three scenarios (RO4)

12
Theory Testing
Strategic evaluation of scenario options in
comprehensive urban planning (Before)
?
?
?
Before Do confusion and conflict reign? Are
concepts from The
Habermasian Inquiring System notable by their
absence?
13
Theory Testing
Strategic evaluation of scenario options in
comprehensive urban planning (After)
After Have confusion and conflict been reduced?
Are concepts from The Habermasian Inquiring
System notable by their presence?
14
Methodology

• Data collected in Focal Phase of longitudinal
  study
• Before evidence gathered in pre-meeting phase
• After evidence gathered in meeting and
  post-meeting phases
• Notes on 50 hours of meetings and phone
  conversations with staff and consultants from a
  regional planning authority
• Direct observations and audio and video records
  of the eight-hour focal GSS-supported workshop
• In-depth study of the documented inputs (i.e. the
  briefing papers) and outputs (i.e. the electronic
  transcript) of the focal GSS-supported workshop
• Perceptions of participants gathered at the end
  of the workshop in both free-text and
  questionnaire form

15
Results
RO3. Participants satisfaction with
the group decision making meeting
Procedure
Divergent Convergent
1. Absence
4. Consensus Relationship of perceived
for cooperative Issues conflict
action 6.1 6.1 Focus 2.
Participation 3. Information Substantive
exchange Issues 6.2 5.5
Participants satisfaction with the
electronically-supported discourse
averaged 6.0 (1Low satisfaction 7High
satisfaction)
16
Results
RO3. Participants performance in
the group decision making meeting

• Conflict at beginning
• Silence for 4 out of the 8 hours
• Intense concentration, like a final exam
• Psychological safety, anonymity of text messages
• Increased ability to listen (eg, to complaints in
  Table X)
• 80 pages of text (frozen discourse) was
  produced
• Transcript received intense study during meeting
• Conflict and confusion were reduced
• Goodwill generated, momentum obtained by end

17
Results RO4 Before the meeting there was
considerable confusion and conflict about
technical, interpersonal and personal issues
Intransigence
Personal knowledge Valuation of personal visions
Personal knowledge Stakeholder
representatives
Conceptual confusion
Interpersonal knowledge Preferences for scenarios
Interpersonal knowledge Multi-criteria decision
making
Briefing documents late
Technical knowledge Studies by technical experts
Technical knowledge Prioritized lists of key
issues
Outcomes
Intentions
Validity Claims
18
Results RO4 The meeting supported discourse on
technical issues. A consensus position emerged
and was documented as Table X.
This level of coherence was richly embedded in
Table X
Criterion
Prioritized key issues
Decision outcome Under the norms of a cognitive,
objectivating attitude towards the facts, the
truth is that all three options are equal
A Cost
1st Transport dominates the issue (44 points) 2nd
Little differenceare scenarios extreme enough?
(27pts)
B Amenity Landscape
All except 15th No explicit mention of scenarios
(235 pts) 15th Greater choice, diversity,
variety in scenario 1 (7 points)
C Housing Choice
No explicit mention of scenarios in any of the
key issues (240 points)
1st Stuff all difference among scenarios (40
points) 2nd Are we wasting
money on public transport without major increases
in population density/consolidation? (25 points)
D Access Transportation
E Water Quality
1st Any option has significant sediment impacts
(44 points) 7 Lack of difference between
scenarios (14 points)
19
Results RO4 The meeting supported discourse on
interpersonal issues. A consensus position
emerged and was documented in Table Y.
This level of coherence is richly embedded in
Table Y
Performance on Criterion
Scenario Three Number who chose / /
0 / - / --
Scenario One Number who chose / /
0 / - / --
Decision outcome Under the norms of established
legitimate inter-personal relationships, Scenario
1 is more right for us than S2 or S3
0 2 3 6 5
3 5 6 2 0
A Cost
B Amenity and Landscape
3 1 3 4 5
4 7 3 1 1
1 7 3 3 2
C Housing Choice
5 7 2 1 1
D Access Transportation
1 3 2 5 5
5 7 3 1 0
5 1 4 4 2
E Water Quality
0 1 2 3 10
20
Results RO4 The meeting supported discourse on
personal issues.
Focus Question. What is it like to live in
Auckland under Option 1, Option 2, and Option 3?
21
Results RO4 The meeting supported discourse on
personal issues. A consensus position emerged and
was documented in Table Z.
Each of the three decision outcomes have been
documented and linked to relevant underlying
validity claims. What is the degree of coherence
among the three levels?
Table Z
Decision outcome Under the norms of disclosure
of speakers subjectivity 14 of the 16
participants will, in all truthfulness, only
support Scenario 1
22
Results RO4. The post-meeting phase focused on
the puzzling pattern of preferences for Scenario
1 over Scenarios 2 and 3
Table Z
Table Y
Table X
23
Conclusion. GSS-enabled intervention in
comprehensive urban planning did reduce
participants confusion and conflict about
preferences for scenarios. The force of the
better argument was revealed via the three-fold
nature of the Habermasian analysis.
Outcomes
Intentions
Validity Claims
24
Conclusion. GSS-enabled intervention in
comprehensive urban planning did reduce
participants confusion and conflict about
preferences for scenarios. The force of the
better argument was revealed via the three-fold
nature of Habermasian inquiry.
Yes! Conflict is reduced!
Outcomes
Intentions
Validity Claims
25
A Habermasian Analysis of Comprehensive Urban
Planning