ABSTRACT
We argued in chapter 1 that planners need theory because the current crisis has strongly theoretical roots. Why, then, do many practitioners reject theory as irrelevant? Before trying to address this question, we need a working definition of the term “theory.” We rather hesitantly provide this rough definition for provisional purposes, and there are reasons for our hesitancy. One of the postmodern criticisms of the notion of theory is that one cannot draw a sharp line between theory and practice. Or, to put it another way: All practice (or observation) is “theory-laden.” This renders the definition of theory problematic. As neopragmatists, we believe that a theory/practice distinction can be usefully made, but only in context, for particular purposes, and viewing the two terms as end points on a continuum. This allows us to retain such useful distinctions without having to defend either their universality or their absoluteness. But it leads to our caution concerning general definitions.
