Mapping the Knowledge Domain of Planning

By analyzing self-reported research and teaching interests of faculty from Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP) member schools, Tom Sanchez and Nader Afzalan attempted to define the practice of planning. In total, they mapped 1149 terms, with a total of 540 acting as links while the remaining 609 were considered "non-core or beyond the central cluster of planning topics."

The most common terms were planning (rank 1) and urban (rank 2). Also on the top 20 in degree rank were subjects such as policy (rank 4), environmental (rank 7), sustainable (rank 17), and international (rank 20). Another metric determined by Sanchez and Afzalan was "betweenness," which "indicates bridges or connections among nodes on the network." In the betweenness rankings, sustainable and international did not show up, but rather GIS (rank 18) and environments (rank 15).

According to the authors, "the results of this analysis suggest that the research interests of urban planning faculty are represented by a dense and cohesive core." The findings of research and teaching interests are in general agreement with APA's list of specialty planning areas. However, further research is necessary to determine whether urban planning practitioners see these topics as relevant to their professional needs.