Pragmatism and Urban Planning: Historical and Conceptual Analysis

Document Type : Review article

Authors

Department of Urban planning and Design, Faculty of Arts and Architecture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

10.22059/jurbangeo.2025.385341.2012

Abstract

Extended Abstract
Introduction
Planning includes today's and future tasks. The planning tasks in the past were much clearer than today, and planners analyzed the problems of the present and modeled and predicted the future with certainty. However, wars, economic stagnation, riots, environmental hazards, etc. have challenged trust in rational arguments today. In fact, our rational understanding of the world is never perfect, and most of our predictions are wrong. Acknowledging the limitations of planners to understand and control the world is related to a pragmatic (pragmatist) attitude towards truth, which emphasizes the fallibility of planners' knowledge, the experience of "what to do" in the here and now, the absence of universal laws and defining practices. It emphasizes orientations rather than a final endpoint. In fact, in contemporary complex cities constantly changing, scientific-rational methods and philosophical interpretations can no longer be the answer alone.
Pragmatism is a philosophical movement that emerged in America in the last years of the 19th century. Unlike traditional philosophical thoughts, it emphasizes theories' practical consequences and usefulness. In fact, pragmatists consider the truth dependent on what is useful for humans and believe that a theory that can be answered in practice is correct.
This philosophical approach and its contemporary reading under the title of neo-pragmatism have had many effects on urban planning and, in recent years, have attracted the attention of contemporary researchers in this field, such as Foster, Hook, Haley, etc. However, in domestic studies, very little attention has been paid to this issue. Firstly, a negative view towards pragmatism or the philosophy of originality of action is prevalent among domestic urban planners. Secondly, the plurality of opinions in philosophy makes it difficult to understand the concept of this philosophical approach and, of course, the difficulty of understanding the reading of planning attributed to it. This issue deprives urban planners inside the country of the benefits of using a pragmatic approach. Meanwhile, pragmatism can help us move beyond traditions of planning. The complexity of urban systems and the high speed of their changes have necessitated this innovative approach to urban planning. However, urban planners, students, and policymakers are always faced with the question of what is pragmatic planning and its characteristics? Moreover, what is the difference with other planning traditions? However, in previous studies, very little attention has been paid to these questions. Most previous studies have either described a specific planning tradition or compared planning traditions without considering pragmatic planning. Studies that have investigated pragmatist planning have also examined it without separating the philosophy of pragmatism and neopragmatism. While these two philosophical readings are very similar, they also have differences. Of course, most theorists in the field of planning have been influenced by reading neopragmatism. For this purpose, this research has been done to describe the characteristics of pragmatism and neo-pragmatism planning and compare it with other urban planning traditions.
 
Methodology
This research discusses the chronological study of the readings on the philosophy of pragmatism and pragmatic planning. In the next step, the concepts of pragmatism, neo-pragmatism, and pragmatic planning are explained. However, as mentioned, there are many differences in the characteristics of the philosophy of pragmatism and neo-pragmatism. Nevertheless, Papini compares pragmatism to a great hotel where a philosopher works in every room. Each of these philosophers thinks differently and about a different question. However, they all go through the same main corridor. Relying on Papini, this research intends, in the next step, to identify the characteristics of the main corridor that all or most pragmatists go through and then to identify the characteristics of pragmatist planning based on the opinions of thinkers in this field or the characteristics of the philosophy of pragmatism and neo-pragmatism.
 For this purpose, the most important and relevant previous studies have been identified using a narrative approach. Then, the features of classical pragmatism, neo-pragmatism, and pragmatic planning features have been extracted using content analysis. Finally, after identifying the characteristics of pragmatist and neo-pragmatist planning, this type of planning has been compared with other planning traditions, and their differences and similarities have been explained.
 
Results and discussion
The findings of this research show that empiricism, pragmatism, utilitarianism, and instrumentalism are the most frequent characteristics of pragmatism, and emphasis on language, pragmatism, belief in relative truth, empiricism, attention to vocabulary, and belief in representation are the most frequent characteristics of neo-pragmatism. Also, contextualism, learning from experience, emphasis on continuity, continuity, evaluation, clarity, and fallibility are the most important characteristics of pragmatic planning. Furthermore, pragmatic planning is the closest to controversial and far from comprehensive planning.
A comparison of the findings of this research with previous studies shows that no study has been done so far in connection with the classical pragmatism reading of urban planning and its difference from neo-pragmatism planning. This research has improved the findings of previous studies by examining the characteristics of pragmatism and neo-pragmatism and planning attributed to each of these movements and comparing pragmatism and neo-pragmatism planning with other planning traditions.
 
Conclusion
Pragmatic planning, especially its new reading under neo-pragmatism planning, can work more effectively than other planning traditions.
 
Funding
There is no funding support.
 
 
Authors’ Contribution
Authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved thecontent of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none.
 
Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
 We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.
BSTRACT
A
The complexity and plurality of opinions in the philosophy of pragmatism make it challenging to understand this philosophical approach and pragmatic planning. While pragmatism helps us not to be passive in the face of the plural future and the rapid and unpredictable changes in the country's urban communities, it also helps us to provide efficient urban planning based on real needs. For this purpose, this research has been done to describe the characteristics of pragmatism and neo-pragmatism planning and compare it with other urban planning traditions. The findings of this research show that contextualism, learning from experience, emphasis on continuity, continuity, evaluation, openness, and error proneness are the most important characteristics of pragmatic planning. Also, pragmatic planning in terms of features such as effective scientific philosophy, the future situation from the point of view of the planner, the definition of planning, relationship with power, rationality, laws and policies, present or future, relying on the ideas of philosophers, the perspective of contradictions, planner's concern and attention, planner's role, planning process, consensus-based planning, market or government, planner's goal, relationship with people, the direction of planning, perspective on democracy, method of achieving truth, planner's vision, values, type of judgment, process or product, method, methods and techniques of planning, widely used tool and the nature of planning is closest to agonistic planning and farthest from comprehensive planning. This research shows that pragmatic planning, especially its new reading, can work more effectively than other planning traditions.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Planning includes today's and future tasks. The planning tasks in the past were much clearer than today, and planners analyzed the problems of the present and modeled and predicted the future with certainty. However, wars, economic stagnation, riots, environmental hazards, etc. have challenged trust in rational arguments today. In fact, our rational understanding of the world is never perfect, and most of our predictions are wrong. Acknowledging the limitations of planners to understand and control the world is related to a pragmatic (pragmatist) attitude towards truth, which emphasizes the fallibility of planners' knowledge, the experience of "what to do" in the here and now, the absence of universal laws and defining practices. It emphasizes orientations rather than a final endpoint. In fact, in contemporary complex cities constantly changing, scientific-rational methods and philosophical interpretations can no longer be the answer alone.
Pragmatism is a philosophical movement that emerged in America in the last years of the 19th century. Unlike traditional philosophical thoughts, it emphasizes theories' practical consequences and usefulness. In fact, pragmatists consider the truth dependent on what is useful for humans and believe that a theory that can be answered in practice is correct.
This philosophical approach and its contemporary reading under the title of neo-pragmatism have had many effects on urban planning and, in recent years, have attracted the attention of contemporary researchers in this field, such as Foster, Hook, Haley, etc. However, in domestic studies, very little attention has been paid to this issue. Firstly, a negative view towards pragmatism or the philosophy of originality of action is prevalent among domestic urban planners. Secondly, the plurality of opinions in philosophy makes it difficult to understand the concept of this philosophical approach and, of course, the difficulty of understanding the reading of planning attributed to it. This issue deprives urban planners inside the country of the benefits of using a pragmatic approach. Meanwhile, pragmatism can help us move beyond traditions of planning. The complexity of urban systems and the high speed of their changes have necessitated this innovative approach to urban planning. However, urban planners, students, and policymakers are always faced with the question of what is pragmatic planning and its characteristics? Moreover, what is the difference with other planning traditions? However, in previous studies, very little attention has been paid to these questions. Most previous studies have either described a specific planning tradition or compared planning traditions without considering pragmatic planning. Studies that have investigated pragmatist planning have also examined it without separating the philosophy of pragmatism and neopragmatism. While these two philosophical readings are very similar, they also have differences. Of course, most theorists in the field of planning have been influenced by reading neopragmatism. For this purpose, this research has been done to describe the characteristics of pragmatism and neo-pragmatism planning and compare it with other urban planning traditions.
 
Methodology
This research discusses the chronological study of the readings on the philosophy of pragmatism and pragmatic planning. In the next step, the concepts of pragmatism, neo-pragmatism, and pragmatic planning are explained. However, as mentioned, there are many differences in the characteristics of the philosophy of pragmatism and neo-pragmatism. Nevertheless, Papini compares pragmatism to a great hotel where a philosopher works in every room. Each of these philosophers thinks differently and about a different question. However, they all go through the same main corridor. Relying on Papini, this research intends, in the next step, to identify the characteristics of the main corridor that all or most pragmatists go through and then to identify the characteristics of pragmatist planning based on the opinions of thinkers in this field or the characteristics of the philosophy of pragmatism and neo-pragmatism.
 For this purpose, the most important and relevant previous studies have been identified using a narrative approach. Then, the features of classical pragmatism, neo-pragmatism, and pragmatic planning features have been extracted using content analysis. Finally, after identifying the characteristics of pragmatist and neo-pragmatist planning, this type of planning has been compared with other planning traditions, and their differences and similarities have been explained.
 
Results and discussion
The findings of this research show that empiricism, pragmatism, utilitarianism, and instrumentalism are the most frequent characteristics of pragmatism, and emphasis on language, pragmatism, belief in relative truth, empiricism, attention to vocabulary, and belief in representation are the most frequent characteristics of neo-pragmatism. Also, contextualism, learning from experience, emphasis on continuity, continuity, evaluation, clarity, and fallibility are the most important characteristics of pragmatic planning. Furthermore, pragmatic planning is the closest to controversial and far from comprehensive planning.
A comparison of the findings of this research with previous studies shows that no study has been done so far in connection with the classical pragmatism reading of urban planning and its difference from neo-pragmatism planning. This research has improved the findings of previous studies by examining the characteristics of pragmatism and neo-pragmatism and planning attributed to each of these movements and comparing pragmatism and neo-pragmatism planning with other planning traditions.
 
Conclusion
Pragmatic planning, especially its new reading under neo-pragmatism planning, can work more effectively than other planning traditions.
 
Funding
There is no funding support.
 
 
Authors’ Contribution
Authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved thecontent of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none.
 
Conflict of Interest
Authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
 We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.

Keywords

References

  1. Addams, j. (1902). Democracy and Social Ethics. University of Illinois Press; 10/20/01 edition (November 19, 2001). 0252070232.
  2. Adel. (2023). The school of pragmatism (progressivism). Retrieved November, 21, 2023, from http://www.adelee-20.blogfa.com/post/95. [inPersian].
  3. Andersen, H. K., & Sandra D. M., (2023). 'Pragmatism for Philosophy of Science', in H. K. Andersen, and Sandra D. Mitchell (eds), The Pragmatist Challenge: Pragmatist Metaphysics for Philosophy of Science (Oxford, 2023; online edn, Oxford Academic, 23 Feb. 2023), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198805458.003.0001
  4. Beauregard, R. A. (2021). Hybrid pragmatisms. Urban Geography, 42, 1394-1396.
  5. Bentley, A.F. (1995). The Process of Government: A Study of Social Pressures (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315134222
  6. Bernstein, R. J. (1983). Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis. University of Pennsylvania Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt3fj0g8
  7. Bernstein, Richard J. (2010). The pragmatic turn. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
  8. Blanco, H. (1994). How to think about social problems: American pragmatism and the idea of planning. Praeger. ISBN 978-0313277757.
  9. Brandom, R. B. (2011). Perspectives on pragmatism: Classical, recent, and contemporary. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674058088
  10. Bridge, G. (2005) Reason in the City of Difference: Pragmatism, Communicative Action and Contemporary Urbanism. London: Routledge
  11. Commons, J. R. (1934). Institutional Economics.
  12. Commons, J. R. (1934a). Institutional economics: Its place in political economy. Macmillan.
  13. Dewey, J. (1919). Reconstruction in philosophy. New York, NY: H. Holt and Company. [PDF] Retrieved from the Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/item/20017102/
  14. Dickstein, M. (Ed.). (1998). The Revival of Pragmatism: New Essays on Social Thought, Law, and Culture. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv11qdxkv
  15. Faludi, A. (1987). A decision-centred view of environmental planning. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
  16. Fischer, F., and J. Forester, J., eds. (1987). Confronting values in policy analysis and planning. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  17. Forester, J. (1984). Bounded Rationality and the Politics of Muddling Through. Public Administration Review, 44(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.2307/975658
  18. Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  19. Forester, J. (1993). Critical theory, public policy and planning practice: Toward a critical pragmatism. Albany: State University of New York Press.
  20. Forester, J. (2012). On the theory and practice of critical pragmatism: Deliberative practice and creative negotiations. Planning Theory, 12(1), 5–22. 10.1177/1473095212448750.
  21. Fraser, N. (1998). Another pragmatism: Alain Locke, critical ‘race’ theory, and the politics of culture. In M. Dickstein (Ed.), The revival of pragmatism: New essays on social thought, law, and culture (pp. 157–175). Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822382522
  22. Friedmann, J., & Weaver, C. (1979). Territory and function. London: Edward Arnold.
  23. Galavotti, M. C. (2017). The ghost of pragmatism: Some historical remarks on the debate on the foundations of probability. In S. Pihlström, F. Stadler, & N. Weidtmann (Eds.), Logical empiricism and pragmatism (Vol. 19). Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50730-9_9
  24. Golmohamadi, S., & Mostafavi, S. (2020). Aesthetic Epistemology from the Perspective of Pragmatism as Opposed to Analytic Aesthetics. Epistemological researches, 9(19), 157-175. [In Persian].
  25. Golmohamadi, S., & Mostafavi, S. (2020). Aesthetic Epistemology from the Perspective of Pragmatism as Opposed to Analytic Aesthetics. Journal of Epistemological Research, 9(1), 157-175. [inPersian].
  26. Gonot-Schoupinsky, F. N., Garip, G., & Sheffield, D. (2022). Facilitating the planning and evaluation of narrative intervention reviews: Systematic Transparency Assessment in Intervention Reviews (STAIR). Evaluation and Program Planning, 91, Article 102043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2021.102043
  27. Haack, S. (2004). Pragmatism, old and new. Contemporary Pragmatism, 1(1), 3–41. https://doi.org/10.1163/18758185-90000126
  28. Haack, S. (2006). Pragmatism, Old And New: Selected Writings. 978-1591023593.
  29. Harper, T. & Stein, S. (1994) Neopragmatism and planning. Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. Pheonix, Arizona.
  30. Harper, T. L., & Stein, S. M. (1995). Out of the Postmodern Abyss: Preserving the Rationale for Liberal Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 14(4), 233-244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9501400401
  31. Harrison, P. (2002). A pragmatic attitude to planning. In P. Allmendinger & M. Tewdwr-Jones (Eds.), Planning futures: New directions for planning theory (pp. 157–171). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203996195
  32. Hashemi, M., & Ganjali, F. (2020). Pragmatism in human-centered and democratic urban design. Journal of Urban Design Studies and Urban Research, 4(2), 63-72. [inPersian].
  33. Hashemi, M., & Ganjali, F. (2020). Pragmatism in human-centered and democratic urban design. Journal of Urban Design Studies and Urban Research, 4(2), 63-72. [In Persian].
  34. Healey, P. (2009). The Pragmatic Tradition in Planning Thought. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28(3), 277-292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X08325175.
  35. Heinonen, K., & Strandvik, T. (2022). Viewpoint: Applying pragmatism to stimulate service research and practice – a European perspective. Journal of Services Marketing, 36(4), 467-475. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-06-2021-0211
  36. Hildebrand, D. L. (2005). Pragmatism, Neopragmatism, and Public Administration. Administration & Society, 37(3), 345-359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399705276114
  37. Hoch, C. (1984a). Doing good and being right: The pragmatic connection in planning theory. Journal of the American Planning Association, 50(3), 335–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944368408976600
  38. Hoch, C. (1984b). Pragmatism, Planning, and Power. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 4(2), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X8400400203
  39. Hoch, C. (2017). Neo-pragmatist planning theory. In M. Gunder, A. Madanipour, & V. Watson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of planning theory (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315696072
  40. Hoch, C. (2019). Pragmatic spatial planning: Practical theory for professionals (1st ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-0367075392.
  41. Hoch, C. J. (2007). Pragmatic Communicative Action Theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26(3), 272-283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X06295029
  42. Hoch, C. J. (2007). Pragmatic Communicative Action Theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26(3), 272-283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X06295029
  43. Holden, M., & Scerri, A. (2015). Justification, compromise and test: Developing a pragmatic sociology of critique to understand the outcomes of urban redevelopment. Planning Theory, 14(4), 360–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095214530701
  44. Holmes, O. V. (1989). Stereoscopic Law.
  45. Ibri, I. A. (2013). Neopragmatism viewed by pragmaticism. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.4000/ejpap.607
  46. James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company the Principles of Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11059-000
  47. James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. Longmans, Green and Co. https://doi.org/10.1037/10851-000
  48. James, W. (1909). The meaning of truth (F. Bowers & I. K. Skrupskelis, Eds.). Dover Publications. https://doi.org/10.2307/2177640
  49. Jon, I. (2020). 12 Pragmatism and contemporary planning theory: Going beyond a communicative approach. In J. Wills & R. Lake (Ed.), The power of pragmatism: Knowledge production and social inquiry (pp. 228-243). Manchester: Manchester University Press. https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526134950.00021
  50. Kaplan, A. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioural science. Random House.
  51. Kaplan, A. (1998). The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioural Science. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315131467
  52. Kaszynska, P. (2023). Value in design: Neoliberalism versus pragmatism. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 9(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2023.05.001
  53. Kelly, L. M., & Cordeiro, M. (2020). Three principles of pragmatism for research on organizational processes. Methodological Innovations, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799120937242
  54. Khaleghi, A. (2019). A mixed research method in the area of pragmatism; A method for geographical research. Geography and Human Relationships, 2(2), 104-130. [In Persian].
  55. Light, A. & Katz, E. (1996). Environmental pragmatism. London: Routledge.
  56. Lindblom, C. (1965). The intelligence of democracy. New York: Free Press.
  57. Magri, T. (2022). Ontology, Pragmatism, and the Quest for Metaphysical Depth. Journal of the History of Metaphysics, 22, 359-380. DOI: 10.1484/J.QUAESTIO.5.133417
  58. Mahdavi, A., & Padash, H. (2007). Penetration of pragmatism in institutional economics. Journal of Economic Essays; an Islamic Approach, 4(8), 160-182. [inPersian].
  59. Mahdavi, A., & Padash, H. (2007). Penetration of pragmatism in institutional economics. Journal of Iran's Economic Essays (JIEE), 4(8), 160-182. [In Persian].
  60. Margolis, J. (1986). Pragmatism without foundations: Reconciling realism and relativism. Blackwell.
  61. Mitchell, K. (2014). Pragmatism, Joint-Carving, and Ontology. The Monist, 97(4), 571–591, https://doi.org/10.1093/monist/97.4.571
  62. Mohammadpour, A. (2011). Research designs with mixed methods: paradigmatic principles and technical methods. Journal of Iranian Social Studies, 4(2), 81-107. [inPersian].
  63. Mohammadpour, A. (2011). Research designs with mixed methods: paradigmatic principles and technical methods. Journal of Iranian Social Studies, 4(2), 81-107. [In Persian].
  64. Mohammadpour, A. (2023). Philosophical Backgrounds and Practical Procedures in Qualitative Methodology. Tehran: Logos. [inPersian].
  65. Mohammadpour, A. (2023). Philosophical grounds and practical procedures in qualitative methodology. Tehran: Lagos. [In Persian].
  66. Morgan, D. L. (2020). Pragmatism as a basis for grounded theory. The Qualitative Report, 25(1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2020.3993
  67. Nabati, S., Badami, M. (2019). Human Rights from the Pragmatism and New Pragmatism Points of View based on Richard Rorty’s Views. International Journal of Nations Research, 4(43), 59. [inPersian].
  68. Nidawati, N. (2022). Keterkaitan dan implikasi pragmatisme dalam pendidikan. Jurnal Mudarrisuna: Media Kajian Pendidikan Agama Islam, 12(2), 423–444. http://dx.doi.org/10.22373/jm.v12i2.14782
  69. O'Connor, D. J. (2010). John Dewey's radical critique of the New Deal. APSA 2010 Annual Meeting Paper. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1642377
  70. 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
  71. Panahi Azad, H., & Ahmadvand, V. M. (2014). Explanation and Criticism of Pragmatism. Kalam Islami, 22(88), 1296-150. [inPersian].
  72. Panahi Azad, H., & Ahmadvand, W. (2014). Explanation and criticism of pragmatism. Kalam Islami, 22(88), 129-150. [In Persian].
  73. Papini, G. (1925). The Failure of Philosophy.
  74. Peirce, C. S. (1878). How to make our ideas clear. Popular Science Monthly, 12(January), 286–302. https://philpapers.org/rec/PEIHTM
  75. Philip Weiner. (2006). The Culture of the History of Ideas: Studies on a Selection of Fundamental Ideas (Volume 1). Tehran: Saad, 2006. [inPersian].
  76. Pihlström, S. (2013). Neopragmatism. In: Runehov, A.L.C., Oviedo, L. (eds) Encyclopedia of Sciences and Religions. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8265-8_1538
  77. Putnam, H. (1994). Words and life (J. Conant, Ed.). Harvard University Press.
  78. Rafieian, M., & Jahanzad, N. (2015). The thought transformation on planning theory. Tehran: Armanshahr. [inPersian].
  79. Rescher, N. (1999). Realistic pragmatism: An introduction to pragmatic philosophy. State University of New York Press.
  80. Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton University Press.
  81. Sabzian Musaabadi, A., & Bahman, Sh. (2010). Pragmatism and Politics: A Review and Critique of Pragmatism in the Sphere of Politics and Government. Journal of Political and International Research, 2(5), 89-123. [inPersian].
  82. Sabzian, M. A., & Shuaib, B. (2011). Pragmatism and Politics: A Study and Critical Review of Pragmatism in the Sphere of Government and Politics. [In Persian].
  83. Sadeghi-Fasaei, S., & Naseri-Rad, M. (2012). Fundamental Elemen to of Qualitative Research in Social Sciences (Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology and Methods). Journal of Iranian Social Studies, 5(2), 78-98. [inPersian].
  84. Sadeghi-Fasaei, S., & Naseri-Rad, M. (2012). Fundamental Elemen to of Qualitative Research in Social Sciences (Ontology, Epistemology, Methodology and Methods). Journal of Iranian Social Studies, 5(2), 78-98. [In Persian].
  85. Saeed Nabati, M., & Badami, M. (2019). Human Rights from the Pragmatism and New Pragmatism Points of View based on Richard Rorty’s Views. International Journal of Nations Research, 4(43), 59. [In Persian].
  86. Sanches de Oliveira, G. (2022). Pragmatism. In: Glăveanu, V.P. (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90913-0_241
  87. Schiller, F. C. S. (1906). Pragmatism and Pseudo-Pragmatism. Mind, 15(59), 375–390. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2248333
  88. Suter, G. W., & Cormier, S. M. (2013). Pragmatism: A practical philosophy for environmental scientists. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 9(2), 181–184. doi:10.1002/ieam.1382
  89. Thayer, H., & Rosenthal. Sandra B. (2023). pragmatism. Encyclopedia Britannica.
  90. Unger, R.M. (2007) The Self Awakened: Pragmatism Unbound. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  91. Verma, N. (1996). Pragmatic rationality and planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 16(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9601600102
  92. Weiner, P. (1385). Culture of the history of ideas: studies on a selection of basic ideas (Volume 1). Tehran: Saad, 1385. [In Persian].
  93. West, C. (1989). The American evasion of philosophy: A genealogy of pragmatism. Macmillan.
  94. Wiener, P. P. (Ed.). (1973). Pragmatism. In Dictionary of the history of ideas: Studies of selected pivotal ideas (Vol. 3, pp. 551–570). Charles Scribner’s Sons.
  95. Ziaee, M., Zandi, E., Abbaspoor, N., & Abdi, M. (2014). An Investigation into Sustainable Tourism Development from Idealistic and Pragmatic Perspectives. Journal of Tourism Planning and Development, 3(8), 11-30. [inPersian].
  96. Ziaee, M., Zandi, E., Abbaspoor, N., & Abdi, M. (2014). An Investigation into Sustainable Tourism Development from Idealistic and Pragmatic Perspectives. Journal of Tourism Planning and Development, 3(8), 11-30. [In Persian].
Geographical Urban Planning Research (GUPR)
Volume 13, Issue 2
June 2025
Pages 57-75

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics