Navigating priorities: Assessing the challenges of curriculum reform in Turkish Urban and Regional Planning Schools

İpek Şen; Turgay Kerem Koramaz

doi:10.47818/DRArch.2024.v5i2126

Navigating priorities: Assessing the challenges of curriculum reform in Turkish Urban and Regional Planning Schools

Authors

İpek Şen Short Bio Istanbul Technical University

Ipek Sen is a researcher and PhD candidate at Istanbul Technical University who lives and works in Istanbul. After graduating from Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University Urban and Regional Planning, she completed her M.A. at Istanbul Bilgi University Cultural Studies Program. She was accepted as a visiting researcher at Cardiff University in 2015. Her research is gathered around the topics of urban poverty, inequality, and decolonization. After teaching at ITU and Istanbul Bilgi University for six years, she transitioned to the private sector as a market researcher and strategist and is now working as a consultant for various companies around the world.
Turgay Kerem Koramaz Short Bio Istanbul Technical University

Turgay Kerem Koramaz has been an academic staff member at ITU Faculty of Architecture, Department of Urban and Regional Planning since 2000. He completed his PhD there, with a thesis on computer-aided 3D visualization techniques in urban historic sites. In 2008, he was a visiting researcher at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. His research focuses on ICT and spatial analysis in urban planning and conservation. He is an associate editor at the Journal of Urban Planning and Development (ASCE) and a member of AESOP (Association of European Schools of Planning), ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites), ERSA (European Regional Science Association).

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47818/DRArch.2024.v5i2126

Keywords:

curriculum revision, planning curriculum, planning schools’ association, urban planning education

Abstract

Planning departments in Türkiye recently witnessed a boom. In less than 20 years, the number of universities offering urban planning programs increased from a dozen to 45, most accepting students with limited resources. Urban planning education has faced many challenges over the last two decades, and offering education with limited resources carried this problem to another level, increasing concerns among scholars about the quality of the education and the learning outcomes a planner should possess at graduation. While planning schools in Türkiye deals with the issues above, global debates in planning education revolve around integrating topics such as climate change, inequality, informality, and decolonization into the curriculum. This study aimed to reveal to what extent global issues find their way into Turkish planning school agendas in an environment where more pressing matters threaten the quality of education. To look further into this issue, all documents published by TUPOB (Türkiye Planning Schools Association) since its foundation were analyzed, and seven in-depth interviews with TUPOB members were conducted. A predominantly qualitative approach was utilized. The findings suggest that the lack of resources is the most critical problem for urban planning schools, followed by insufficient teaching faculty. The curriculum updates and integration of global issues such as climate change and urban poverty come later in the priorities list. This research showed that concerns regarding resources and lack of standards take precedence over global discussions in planning curricula.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Akçakaya Waite, İ., Alkay, E., & Becerik Altındiş, S. (2021). Transforming Planning Education. In Routledge eBooks (pp. 121–139). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003178545-10.
Aksümer, G. (2022). Planning practice and academic knowledge: different perspectives of urban planners in Türkiye. European Planning Studies, 31(2), 231–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2022.2106552.
Allmendinger, P. (2002). Towards a Post-Positivist Typology of Planning Theory. Planning Theory, 1(1), 77-99. https://doi.org/10.1177/147309520200100105.
Andrews, C. J., Popper, F. J., Lowrie, K., & Stiles, J. (2017). A Planners’ Rorschach: The Most Frequent Words in JPER’s Article Titles. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 37(3), 269-270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17722952.
Başaran Uysal, A., Albayrak, A.N., & Başaran, C. (2021). Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Bölümlerinin Yeterlikleri Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme, 9 Kasım Dünya Şehircilik Günü, 45. Kolokyumu, Planlamanın Birikimi, Zemini, Ufku. Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, TMMOB Şehir Plancıları Odası, Ankara, Türkiye.
Bengs, C. (2005). Planning Theory for the naive?. European Journal of Spatial Development, 3(7), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5148363.
Bradbeer, J. (1999). Barriers to Interdisciplinarity: Disciplinary discourses and student learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 23(3), 381–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098269985326.
Cömertler, S. (2018). Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Bölümlerinin Öğretim Kadrolarının TUPOB Ölçütlerine Göre Analizi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 5(1), 65-89.
Cuthbert, A (2016) Emergent pedagogy or critical thinking?, Journal of Urban Design, 21:5, 551-554, DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2016.1220139.
Dandekar, H. C. (1986). Some Uses and Potentials of Qualitative Methods in Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 6(1), 42-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X8600600110.
Dawkins, C. J. (2016). Preparing Planners: The Role of Graduate Planning Education. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 36(4), 414-426. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X15627193.
Eizenberg, E., & Shilon, M. (2016). Pedagogy for the new planner: Refining the qualitative toolbox. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 43(6), 1118-1135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813515604477.
Eser, B., & Koramaz, T.K. (2023), Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Stüdyosunda “Sinema Evreninden Öğrenmek”. İTÜ Vakfı Dergisi, sayı:90, s. 46 - 50.
Filion, P. (2021). Creative or instrumental planners? Agency and structure in their institutional and political economy context. Planning Theory, 20(3), 255-274. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095220980499.
Frank, A. I. (2006). Three Decades of Thought on Planning Education. Journal of Planning Literature, 21(1), 15-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412206288904.
Gunder, M. (2002). Bridging theory and practice in planning: A story from Auckland. Australian Planner, 39(4), 202–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2002.9982320.
Harris, N. (2000). Practice through a lens: A metaphor for planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, 309–315. doi:10.1177/0739456X0001900310.
Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Innes, J.E. (1995). Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and the interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14, 183–189. doi:10.1177/0739456X9501400307.
Johnston, A. S. (2015). CitySection: A Pedagogy for Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration in Planning and Environmental Design. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 35(1), 86-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X14557641.
Kallus, R. (2001). From Abstract to Concrete: Subjective Reading of Urban Space. Journal of Urban Design, 6(2), 129–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800120057818.
Kunzmann, K. R., & Koll-Schretzenmayr, M. (2015). Introduction: Planning and Planning Education in 2015. disP - The Planning Review, 51(1), 16–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2015.1038042.
Nnkya, T. J. (2008). Why planning does not work. Land use planning and residents’ rights in Tanzania. Dar es Salaam: Mkuki na Nyota Publishers.
Odendaal, N. (2012). Reality check: planning education in the African urban century. Cities, 29(3), 174-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2011.10.001.
Olesen, K. (2018). Teaching planning theory as planner roles in urban planning education. Higher Education Pedagogies, 3(1), 302–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2018.1425098.
Özkazanç, S., & Korkmaz, C. (2019). Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Disiplininde Eğitim, İş Bulma ve Mesleki Öz Yeterliliğe İlişkin Kaygı ve Beklentiler. Journal of Architectural Sciences and Applications, 4(2), 122-139. https://doi.org/10.30785/mbud.582936.
Penpecioğlu, M., & Taşan-Kok, T. (2016). Alienated and politicized? Young planners’ confrontation with entrepreneurial and authoritarian state intervention in urban development in Türkiye. European Planning Studies, 24(6), 1037–1055. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1135233.
Phiri, D. (2010). Revitalising planning education in Zambia. Journal of Building and Land Development, 9–22.
PLANED (2024) Kuruluş Amacı Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Eğitimi ve Akreditasyonu Derneği, Retrieved 17th July, 2024 from https://www.planed-planak.org/.
Pojani, D., Johnson, L., Darchen, S., & Yang, K. (2018). Learning by Doing: Employer Expectations of Planning Studio Education. Urban Policy and Research, 36(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2016.1221814.
Roakes, S. L., & Norris-Tirrell, D. (2000). Community Service Learning in Planning Education: A Framework for Course Development. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20(1), 100-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/073945600128992636.
Robinson, O. C. (2014). Sampling in Interview-Based Qualitative Research: A Theoretical and Practical Guide. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 11(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2013.801543.
Scholz, W., Stober, T., & Sassen, H. (2021). Are Urban Planning Schools in the Global South Prepared for Current Challenges of Climate Change and Disaster Risks? Sustainability, 13(3), 1064. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031064.
Schön, D. A. (2017). The Reflective Practitioner. Routledge. Retrieved 17th July, 2024 from http://books.google.ie/books?id=OT9BDgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+reflective+practicioner&hl=&cd=1&source=gbs_api.
Sehested, K. (2009). Urban planners as network managers and metagovernors. Planning Theory & Practice, 10, 245–263. doi:10.1080/14649350902884516.
Shilon, M., & Eizenberg, E. (2020). Critical pedagogy for the new planner: Mastering an inclusive perception of ‘The Other.’ Cities, 97, 102500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102500.
Sletto, B. (2012). Insurgent Planning and Its Interlocutors. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 33(2), 228–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x12467375.
Tekeli, İ. (2011). Toplu eserler (15) Türkiye'nin kent planlama ve kent araştırmaları tarihi yazıları. Tarih Vakfı.
Thompson, R. (2000). Re-defining Planning: The Roles of Theory and Practice. Planning Theory & Practice, 1(1), 126–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350050135248.
TUPOB (2004). Vizyon, Retrieved 17th July, 2024, from https://www.spo.org.tr/tupob/detay.php?kod=12130&tipi=56&sube=0.
TUPOB (2005). AB Sürecinde “Hizmetlerin Serbest Dolaşımı” Ve Şehir Plancılarının Geleceği, Retrieved 17th July, 2024 from https://www.spo.org.tr/tupob/detay.php?kod=608&tipi=76&sube=0.
TUPOB (2005). Türkiye Planlama Okulları Birliği 1. Koordinasyon Toplantısı Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi Buluşması Retrieved 17th July, 2024 from https://www.spo.org.tr/tupob/detay.php?kod=605&tipi=76&sube=0.
TUPOB (2007). Türkiye Planlama Okulları Birliği 3. Koordinasyon Toplantısı İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Buluşması, Retrieved 17th July, 2024 from https://www.spo.org.tr/tupob/detay.php?kod=607&tipi=76&sube=0.
TUPOB (2007) Türkiye’de Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Eğitiminde Kalite Geliştirme ve Akreditasyon ve Mesleki Yetkinlik ve Yeterlilik, Retrieved 17th July, 2024 from https://www.spo.org.tr/tupob/detay.php?kod=609&tipi=76&sube=0.
TUPOB (2009). Kuruluş Protokolü, Retrieved 17th July, 2024 from https://www.spo.org.tr/tupob/detay.php?kod=1147&tipi=73.
TUPOB (2010). Kuruluş Protokolü, Retrieved 17th July, 2024 from https://www.spo.org.tr/tupob/detay.php?kod=2853&tipi=73.
TUPOB (2011). Kuruluş Protokolü, Retrieved 17th July, 2024 from https://www.spo.org.tr/tupob/detay.php?kod=4341&tipi=73.
TUPOB (2011) Türkiye Planlama Okulları Birliği Lisans Düzeyinde Açılacak Şehir ve Bölge Planlama Bölümleri İçin Gerekli Asgari Ölçütler.
TUPOB (2018) Türkiye Planlama Okulları Birliği 12. Dönem II. Olağan Toplantısı Koordinasyon “Planlama Okulları ve Planlama Eğitimi,” Retrieved 17th July, 2024 from https://www.spo.org.tr/resimler/ekler/f0a9a508a474253_ek.pdf.
Watson, V. (2014). The Case for a Southern Perspective in Planning Theory. International Journal of E-planning Research, 3(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijepr.2014010103.
Watson, V. (2016). Shifting Approaches to Planning Theory: Global North and South. Urban Planning, 1(4), 32–41. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v1i4.727.
YÖK (2024). YÖK İstatistikler. Retrieved 17th July, 2024 from https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/.

Downloads

PDF

76

37

Published

2024-08-30

How to Cite

Şen, İpek, & Koramaz, T. K. (2024). Navigating priorities: Assessing the challenges of curriculum reform in Turkish Urban and Regional Planning Schools. Journal of Design for Resilience in Architecture and Planning, 5(2), 168–184. https://doi.org/10.47818/DRArch.2024.v5i2126