Flyvbjerg Research Articles

Making Planning Theory Matter: A Lacanian Encounter with Phronesis

Traditional social science often fails when deployed to explain complex human action. In each specific social field of human endeavour, including planning, experienced actors draw on a range of conscious and unconscious performative knowledges to act with effect: the experts simply ‘know’ what to do. Flyvbjerg suggests that to understand these complex human dispositions framing practice requires a detailed understanding of the particular, not the universal. Drawing on Aristotle's intellectual virtue of phronesis, Flyvbjerg refers to this as a phronetic social science model. This article suggests that Lacan's theoretical insights and conceptualizations pertaining to the split human subject, divided between symbolic consciousness and unconscious affect, can help to empower this phronetic model. The article argues that a Lacanian inspired phronetic model is particularly useful for understanding spatial planning and related urban policy discourses, for it provides insight as to how desire and resultant ideological fantasies shape our shared social reality and spaces of habitation in our globalized world.

The Politics and Institutions of Project Approval - a Critical-Constructive Comment on the Theory of Strategic Misrepresentation

This article addresses theoretical and methodological explanations of miscalculations of costs and benefits in large infrastructure projects. In particular the focus is on the most influential theoretical contribution in this area, labeled ‘the theory of strategic misrepresentation’, a theory strongly associated with the work of Bent Flyvbjerg. The theory’s major explanation of cost overruns is that the registration and representation of data and the calculations of costs and benefits are made by planners in organisations that have economic interests in the results. They work in a context were they compete for scarce public resources, and in which lying pays off in the end. The result is, as Flyvbjerg expresses it, the ‘survival of the unfittest’. It is not the best projects that are built, but the most misrepresented ones. This theory, with its focus on the institutional context and incentive structures, represents a major step forward compared to the solely methodological explanations. However, it has several shortcomings both in theoretical and methodological terms. Methodologically, the research has not the design necessary for validating the conclusion of ‘the survival of the unfittest’. Theoretically, the framework does not offer any variation on the institutional variable nor when it comes to variation in planners (actors) motives and rationality. Hence, there is a need for a broader theoretical framework. We conclude our article by sketching such a framework, an institutional approach grounded in sociological theory, as well as applying it to Norwegian transport planning. The Norwegian research in this area does not support the thesis that project approval is a result of planners’ strategic actions. More often it is an outcome of institutions where politicians play a key role at all levels and stages of the planning process, often neglecting planners’ analyses and recommendations.

Decision‐Making on Mega‐Projects—Cost‐Benefit Analysis, Planning and Innovation – Edited by Hugo Priemus, Bent Flyvbjerg, and Bert van Wee

Growth and ChangeVolume 40, Issue 2 p. 380-383 Decision-Making on Mega-Projects—Cost-Benefit Analysis, Planning and Innovation – Edited by Hugo Priemus, Bent Flyvbjerg, and Bert van Wee Simonetta Longhi, Simonetta Longhi Institute for Social and Economic ResearchUniversity of EssexEmail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author Simonetta Longhi, Simonetta Longhi Institute for Social and Economic ResearchUniversity of EssexEmail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author First published: 04 June 2009 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2257.2009.00486.xCitations: 2Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Citing Literature Volume40, Issue2June 2009Pages 380-383 RelatedInformation

Making Making Social Science Matter Matter To Us

This article pursues two line of inquiry in response to Bent Flyvbjerg's advocacy of a phronetic social science in Making Social Science Matter (2001). First, I explore how Flyvbjerg's manifesto relates to the approach employed in his earlier empirical work, Rationality & Power (1998). There are, I argue, notable disjunctions between the practice of Rationality & Power and the preaching of Making Social Science Matter. Second, I explicate and rework Flyvbjerg's contrast between epistemic and phronetic social science with an eye to its reception by a specific disciplinary audience: American political scientists. In doing so, I build on several contributions to Sanford Schram and Brian Caterino's edited volume Making Political Science Matter (2006). My aspiration is, however, rather different from that of the volume: I strive to make epistemic and phronetic into accessible categories of reformist reflection, not provocative banners under which to marshal revolutionary opposition to our disciplinary mainstream(s).

Response to Todd Landman

I would like to comment on just one point inTodd Landman’s thoughtful review of Making Political Science Matter (Landman 2008).This is Landman’s regret that Making Political Science Matter contains only two examples that demonstrate the utility of phronetic social science as practical research, namely Corey Shdaimah and Roland Stahl’s case study of theWomen’s Community Revitalization Project in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (ch. 5), and partly my own case study of urban politics and planning in the city of Aalborg, Denmark (ch. 3). In my judgement, Landman here puts his finger on exactly the area where phronetic social science is most in need of further development.

Making Political Science Matter: Debating Knowledge, Research, and Method

Making Political Science Matter: Debating Knowledge, Research, and Method, Sanford F. Schram and Brian Caterino, New York: New York University Press, 2006, pp. 304.Making Political Science Matter is a response to Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again by Bent Flyvbjerg, Professor of Planning at Aalborg University, Denmark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). Making Political Science Matter is a collection of fourteen essays on methodological issues in political science. Its overarching aim is “to move the conversation forward in the hopes of seeing the possibility of a rejuvenated political science” (11).

Phronetic social science: prospects and possibilities?

Phronetic social science: prospects and possibilities?

Creativity, fantasy, role-play and theatre in social work

This article considers the development of social work research and social work practice. In contrast to the usual emphasis on evidence based studies and tools in social work research the article argues for the development of quantitative studies and tools and proposes creativity, fantasy, role-play and especially Forum Theatre as key elements of this development. This approach is compatible with Flyberg's 2002 concept of 'actual science' - a context-dependent methodology oriented more towards subjects than objects - or 'phronetic social science' - where judgements and decisions are based on values. Both approaches have the capacity to incorporate the complexity of social work, to involving users and social workers in research processes, and to build up knowledge production from the bottom up. The article also argues that creativity, role-play, fantasy and Forum theatre are as necessary and useful in developing social work practice as in facilitating the research process.

The decision to invest: Practitioner's guidance

As accounting academics, we have a responsibility to act in the public interest as conscience, critic and counselor of society regarding economic, social and environmental justice. In fulfilling this responsibility, we are concerned with how accounting, accountants, and accountability regimes can facilitate democracy by serving the needs of pluralistic communities, giving particular attention to the various underserved constituencies. Informed by Flyvbjerg’s (2001) notion of phronetic social science research that matters, we reviewed 353 articles published in Critical Perspectives on Accounting from 1990 to 2014 identifying the focal constituency(s), the injustice(s) addressed, the groups or institutions responsible for the injustice as well as the proposals for social and political praxis outlined in the studies. Our review indicates that generally the studies identify a somewhat focused, though salient and appropriate, set of economic, social and/or environmental injustices experienced by various constituencies, and to some extent, the studies consider the context and conditions that perpetuate the inequality and injustices. However, as the field matures, there is a need for more robust development of the social and political implications of critical accounting research and for articulating the ideas and implications as action programs. Further, our review suggests that several relevant constituencies such as non-human animals, children, future generations, developing nations, and gender and sex/uality minorities have received little or no attention in the current literature.

The Underestimated Significance of Practitioner Knowledge in the Scholarship on Student Success

The scholarship on student success, particularly for minority groups, has two limitations. One is the lack of attention to practitioners' knowledge, beliefs, experiences, education, and feelings of self‑efficacy as factors that influence student outcomes. The other derives from the traditional science assumption that the researcher produces generalized knowledge that is translatable into "best practices" that are implemented locally by practitioners. These epistemological limitations can be addressed by the conceptualization of a phronetic social science for higher education where practitioners assume the role of researchers and develop context‑dependent knowledge and experience about how to facilitate student success.

You Can Generalize Stupid! Social Scientists, Bent Flyvbjerg, and Case Study Methodology

It is an issue of some contestation as to whether generalization is an appropriate requisite to demand of case study research in any case. The author argues that the critique is misdirected, and based on Bent Flyvbjerg’s concept of a “critical case,” ways of generalizing from case studies are indicated (Iran/Iraq War of 1980). In addition, the author illustrates that the case study is idyllic for generalizing using the brand of test that Karl Popper called “falsification.” Conversely, the author exhibits Robert Stake’s ethos that case studies need not make any claims about the generalizability of their findings but rather, what is crucial is the use others make of them—chiefly, that they feed into processes of “naturalistic generalization.”

Understanding Project Management Practice through Interpretative and Critical Research Perspectives

This paper discusses the possibilities that a qualitative research approach grounded in critical interpretative perspectives of phronetic social science can offer an alternative way of understanding and talking about the practice of project management. Such an approach implies a combination of practical philosophical considerations and concrete empirical analysis of lived experiences and social processes in concrete project settings. Two important issues are addressed: the complex process of this kind of qualitative research, and the nature and practical usefulness of its outcomes. First, the interconnectedness of a number of elements in the process of management research (the focus of inquiry, theoretical tradition used to define the research question, methodological approach to research design, and data collection and interpretation method) is presented as a holistic framework, which is then used to discuss the implications of deploying interpretative and critical methodologies in researching project management practice, skills, and competencies. By providing examples of both the process and outcomes from an illustrative research study, the paper illuminates how the chosen, phronesis-centered approach underpinned by the concepts of “pragmatic epistemology” and “cooperative enquiry” can generate new insights into project managers’ daily coping with the complexity of projects. Further commentary is then provided on how the mainstream, normative prescriptions regarding individual skills and competencies could be combined with the alternative ones that promote intuition, judgment, and social and political virtuosity in local contexts, and integrated to enhance the existing project management training and development schemes.

Book Reviews

Development Policy ReviewVolume 23, Issue 5 p. 615-638 Book Reviews First published: 18 August 2005 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2005.00305.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Abstract Books reviewed in this article: Overcoming Stagnation in Aid-Dependent Countries. By Nicolas van de Walle. The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. By Jeffrey D. Sachs. Controlling Immigration: A Global Perspective. Edited by Wayne A. Cornelius, Takeyuki Tsuda, Philip L. Martin and James F. Holliefield. Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition. By Bent Flyvbjerg, Nils Bruzelius, and Werner Rothengatter. Unity and Diversity in Development Ideas: Perspectives from the UN Regional Commissions. Edited by Yves Berthelot. In Search of Sustainable Livelihood Systems: Managing Resources and Change. By Ruedi Baumgartner and Ruedi Högger. Governance on the Ground: Innovations and Discontinuities in Cities of the Developing World. Edited by Patricia L. McCarney and Richard E. Stern. The New Face of Environmental Management in India. By Aparna Sawhney. Trade Policy Reforms in Latin America: Multilateral Rules and Domestic Institutions. Edited by Miguel F. Lengyel and Vivianne Ventura-Dias. Slum Upgrading and Participation: Lessons from Latin America. By Ivo Imparato and Jeff Ruster. Decentralisation in Indonesia: Redesigning the State. By Mark Turner and Owen Podger with Maria Sumardjono and Wayan K. Tirthayasa. The Politics of NGOs in Indonesia: Developing Democracy and Managing a Movement. By Bob S. Hadiwinata. Dignity Counts: A Guide to Using Budget Analysis to Advance Human Rights. Edited by Centro de Análisis Taxation without Representation in Contemporary Rural China. By Thomas P. Bernstein and Xiaobo Lü. Volume23, Issue5September 2005Pages 615-638 RelatedInformation

How (In)accurate Are Demand Forecasts in Public Works Projects?: The Case of Transportation

This article presents results from the first statistically significant study of traffic forecasts in transportation infrastructure projects. The sample used is the largest of its kind, covering 210 projects in 14 nations worth U.S.$59 billion. The study shows with very high statistical significance that forecasters generally do a poor job of estimating the demand for transportation infrastructure projects. For 9 out of 10 rail projects, passenger forecasts are overestimated; the average overestima-tion is 106%. For half of all road projects, the difference between actual and forecasted traffic is more than ±20%. The result is substantial financial risks, which are typically ignored or downplayed by planners and decision makers to the detriment of social and economic welfare. Our data also show that forecasts have not become more accurate over the 30-year period studied, despite claims to the contrary by forecasters. The causes of inaccuracy in forecasts are different for rail and road projects, with political causes playing a larger role for rail than for road. The cure is transparency, accountability, and new forecasting methods. The challenge is to change the governance structures for forecasting and project development. Our article shows how planners may help achieve this. This article was substantially reproduced in the article "Inaccuracy in Traffic Forecasts", published in 2006 inTransport Reviews [Bent Flyvbjerg, Mette Skamris Holm, and Søren L. Buhl, Transport Reviews, Vol. 26, Issue 1, 2006, pp. 1–24 (retracted)] and is the subject of a Notice of Redundant Publication in Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 78, Issue 3, page 352, 2012. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2012.719432

Beyond Paradigm: Resisting the Assimilation of Phronetic Social Science

David Laitin uses Bent Flyvbjerg’s Making Social Science Matter as a surrogate manifesto on behalf of the Perestroika movement’s campaign for methodological pluralism in political science. After an overview of Perestroika, I note my own vision for the movement, outline the most significant features of Flyvbjerg’s call for a revived social science, and provide a critique of Laitin’s attempt to assimilate Flyvbjerg’s analysis to his own vision for an improved political science. I conclude with a word about the potential of Perestroika to build on Flyvbjerg’s insights to promote what I call “post-paradigmatic” social science.

Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition

Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition. By Bent Flyvbjerg, Nils Bruzelius, and Werner Rothengatter. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 218p. 20.00 paper.Multibillion dollar infrastructural projects, or megaprojects such as the Channel Tunnel, the Oresund bridge between Denmark and Sweden, the Hong Kong and Denver airports, or many high-speed rail links in Europe, continue to be built in record numbers despite poor performance and colossal losses. Why? The authors provide ample evidence to substantiate their claim that such projects are systematically misrepresented in public and private deliberations because many of the participants in the process have incentives to underestimate costs, overestimate revenues, undervalue environmental impact, and overvalue economic development effects.

A Perestroikan Straw Man Answers Back: David Laitin and Phronetic Political Science

This article addresses three main issues. First, it argues that David Laitin, in a misguided critique of Bent Flyvbjerg’s book Making Social Science Matter for being a surrogate manifesto for Perestroika, misrepresents the book in the extreme. Second, the article argues that Laitin’s claim that political science may become normal, predictive science in the natural science sense is unfounded; the claim is a dead end that perestroikans try to get beyond. Finally, the article proposes that political scientists substitute phronesis for episteme and thereby avoid the trap of emulating natural science. By doing so, political scientists may arrive at social science that is strong where natural science is weak: in the reflexive analysis and discussion of values and interests aimed at praxis, which is the prerequisite for an enlightened political, economic, and cultural development in any society.

Book Reviews

International Journal of Urban and Regional ResearchVolume 28, Issue 3 p. 717-734 Book Reviews First published: 06 September 2004 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0309-1317.2004.00547.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Abstract Books reviewed: Stuart Aitken Geographies of young people: the morally contested spaces of identity Akel Ismail Kahera Deconstructing the American mosque: space, gender, and aesthetics Eric Klinenberg Heatwave: a social autopsy of disaster in Chicago Louise Chawla (ed.) Growing up in an urbanising world Richard Tomlinson, Robert A. Beauregard, Lindsay Bremner and Xolela Mangcu (eds.) Emerging Johannesburg: perspectives on the postapartheid city Bent Flyvbjerg Making social science matter David J. Myers and Henry A. Dietz (eds.) Capital city politics in Latin America: democratization and empowerment Dennis R. Judd (ed.) The infrastructure of play Dominique Malaquais Architecture, pouvoir et dissidence au Cameroun Lydia Morris Managing migration. Civic stratification and migrants' rights Volume28, Issue3September 2004Pages 717-734 RelatedInformation

What Future for Social Science?

Each of the authors discussed in this review essay deplores the attempts of scholars in the human sciences to ape their colleagues in the natural sciences and economics. Their criticisms are not dissimilar, nor are they without merit, but it is important to ask the following questions: What would they offer in its place? What kind of warrantability do the alternatives promise? Can researchers avoid the dominant paradigms and still have something valuable to say to policymakers? The bulk of the review focuses on Bent Flyvbjerg's Making Social Science Matter, the best‐reasoned critique, and the one that offers the clearest alternative to the status quo.

What Future for Social Science?

Each of the authors discussed in this review essay deplores the attempts of scholars in the human sciences to ape their colleagues in the natural sciences and economics. Their criticisms are not dissimilar, nor are they without merit, but it is important to ask the following questions: What would they offer in its place? What kind of warrantability do the alternatives promise? Can researchers avoid the dominant paradigms and still have something valuable to say to policymakers? The bulk of the review focuses on Bent Flyvbjerg's Making Social Science Matter, the best‐reasoned critique, and the one that offers the clearest alternative to the status quo.