Contingency Theory: A Description of Planning Practice in Rhode Island

There is a discrepancy between what planners in a general sense wish to accomplish and what they practice in the field. Similar to incrementalism, contingency planning threatens the widely accepted notion that planning should be rational and comprehensive. Contingency planning has no broad, long term goals and it focuses on solving problems in a short time frame. Yet, contingency may best characterize the day-to-day bureaucracy and situational compromises in which planners make decisions. This study examines contingency planning through an analysis of the current literature and by a survey of practicing planning professionals in the State of Rhode Island. The findings show that contingency theory, implemented through strategic planning, generally describes planning practice in Rhode Island.


STATEMENT OF THE SUBJECT
Contingency is an anomaly when compared to other planning paradigms.
Marcia Marker Feld (1990) described contingency planning as a current approach which offers more questions than guidance. Planning literature describes it as a patchwork borrowing heavily from other paradigms (Hudson: 1980, Kaufman:1980. Similar to incrementalism, contingency planning threatens the mainstream definition of planning; contingency has no broad goals and focuses on solving short term problems.
Contingency theory may not qualify as a planning paradigm, given the centrist definition of planning in the United States put forth by the Planning School Accreditation Board 1 :

At
Planning is a future oriented, comprehensive process. It seeks to link knowledge and action in ways which improve the quality of public and private development decisions affecting people and places. Because of its future orientation, planning embraces visionary and utopian thinking, yet also recognizes that the implementation of plans requires the reconciliation of present realities to future states. Contingency planning is a construct which posits that no single planning style can be effective without parallel input from complementary or countervailing traditions (Hudson 1980) . Contingent behavior is conditional or situational, that is, behavior that would or should differ depending on the conditions present or the context.
The idea behind the contingent approach is that different situations, i.e. 'urban and physical systems', probably call for different 'planning strategies' if the planning is to be effective. (Bryson 1978 :7) The planner's role envisioned by contingency theory is that of a hybrid. The hybrid role has the advantages of both technician and politician; though, the practitioner as hybrid may decide on either a constant process of choice, or attempt to balance the inconsistencies of the two roles (Howe 1980). Every planning style has ideological gaps that can only be compensated by blending in other planning styles.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SUBJECT
Planning theory is of fundamental importance to the field of planning for several reasons.
Theory provides a strong basis for decision making. It allows for a deeper understanding of the roles clients and planners play in relation to one another. Theory enables planners to translate 2 experience into identifying and foreseeing patterns.
The field of planning theory is, among other things, designed to examine the decision making process. Decisions are intrinsic to all actions and reactions. They reflect both fact and value choices and involve the weighing of alternatives and consequences. Planning theory is therefore fundamental to the understanding and implementation of the planning process.
Through careful examination and application of various paradigms, planners can enhance their decision making abilities. Organizing categories, in the form of paradigms or theories, help articulate how we define and structure reality, creating order among chaos. Depending on which approach the planner applies to a given situation, the outcome of the issue will differ. Planning theory not only helps clarify a perspective, but often gives insights to other ways of approaching a problem.
If a planner can identify and recognize the specific paradigms that others use in decisions making, this, in turn, may prove helpful to understanding others' expectations and assumptions. This learned insight is often an advantage when sitting at a bargaining table, trying to convince various groups of the necessity of a certain plan or proposal.

HYPOTHESIS
Despite theoretical ideals and the normative commitment of the profession to comprehensiveness, goal setting, and long range rationality, planners in the State of Rhode Island work on a day-to-day, contingency basis. The hypothesis is that contingency theory adequately describes how Rhode Island planners plan, which includes a process of strategic planning, by which decisions can be made.

PRINCIPAL QUESTIONS
Planning approaches often appear sterile when discussed in an academic setting. Examination of a specific paradigm or theory in a professional setting is an effective way of evaluating and assessing its applicability. Though not every theory or paradigm must necessarily be applicable to direct implementation, its applicability may be used as an indicator of practitioners' ideological needs.
When applying theory to practice, contingency may be the answer to "How and why do planners do what they do?" The following questions will attempt to address how contingency is Is contingency utilized in the planning field? Is it a valuable method for decision making?
The following research has been designed to operationalize the data by linking it specifically to the principal questions as required for the analysis of the hypothesis.

ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to examine contingency theory and answer the principal questions by examining current literature, and by surveying the practices of planning professionals in Rhode Island. This study is organized into five chapters. Following the Introduction is Chapter Two which reviews the literature that will frame the hypothesis and discuss the various elements of contingency theory.
Chapter Three discusses the questionnaire design and its results. Chapter Four analyzes the implications of the results and compare them to the general trends in the field of planning theory. The last Chapter summarizes the findings of the research in relation to the original hypothesis.

INTRODUCTION
This literature review will link the different elements of the findings by grounding the work in a body of knowledge, and by linking the research to an existing body of theory.
The outline of this chapter is as follows: challenges to the validity of the rational/empirical root; the different paradigms that comprise contingency; and contingency theory as implemented through the strategic planning process.

RATIONALITY CHALLENGED
The classic comprehensive paradigm is faltering (Innes 1990;Kartez 1989;Beauregard 1989 incomplete information about the baseline, the background of "the problem"; 4.
incomplete information about the consequences of supposed alternatives 5.
incomplete information about the range and content of values, preferences, and interests; and 6. limited time, limited skills, and limited resources.
6 Contemporary planning problems are complicated (numerous interacting variables), interconnected (a decision in one area is affected by choices made in others), and conflictual (the values or assumptions of those involved in or affected by the decision disagree). Comprehensive planning is ill prepared to handle "messy" situations.
The ideology of science embodied in Positivism is itself a form of modern religion: a faith in pure knowledge obtained by mechanical means, and unsullied by the messiness of human language, work and jealousy.
(Walker 1989: 136) Dror (1963) was one of the first theorists who attempted to address the "messy" structure in which planning behavior takes place.
He identified four major variables; the general environment of the planning process, the subject matter or issue area of the planning process, the planning unit, and the desired type of plan or outcome of the process.
Case studies show that contingency can be used for coping with uncertainty, or that given the choice, planners would handle situations on an issue-to-issue basis. For example, a study conducted by Bryson, Bromiley, and Jung (1981) suggests that the impacts of context and a varying emphasis on analytical processes will af feet a program or project's For other case studies that test for the use of contingency theory, see Kartez (1984), Rondinelli, Verspoor, and Middleton (1984), and Meyer and Belobaba 7 A paradigm is an extension of the fundamental theoretical framework by which we make decisions. The breakdown of the rational, comprehensive decision making model of mainstream planning theory can be understood in part through Kuhn's work on the structure of scientific revolutions. Kuhn (1970) rejected the conventional notion that scientific breakthroughs occur through the orderly, progressive aggregation of knowledge by means of a linear chain of related studies. Galloway and Mahayni (1977)  Contingency serves as one of the suggested theories to replace or enhance the modern comprehensive paradigm.
The profession has come to understand that knowledge is not only made up of facts, but of values as well (Feld 1990;Innes 1990). The comprehensive paradigm is being challenged by various non-rational paradigms that acknowledge the value of qualitative data and common knowledge, and that political power is central to the planning process. Contingency is one (1982).
3 Galloway and Mahayni ( 1977) suggest that the profession explores paradigms through the following stages: pre-paradigm; paradigm development; paradigm articulation; paradigm anomaly; paradigm crisis; and then the cycle repeats itself. of the approaches that may be considered for the paradigm development stage.
According to contingency theory (Bryson and Delbecq 1979;Hudson 1978), the role of the planner and the notion of the client change depends upon the contextual situation.
Planning is not only logical and sequential but intuitive and artistic as well (Grant 1990), and should acknowledge such elements as valid in the decision making process.
But contingency seems to lack the fundamental theoretical framework that a planning paradigm usually provides.  Hudson ( 1978) suggests that this modern comprehensive paradigm is the most commonly used paradigm from the several paradigms that constitute contingency theory. This report's primary research will later refine this suggestion to define the modern comprehensive paradigm as the ideologically dominant as opposed to the pragmatically dominant paradigm.
A descriptive approach similar to contingency but still adhering to rational/ empiricism, is incrementalism (Lindblom 1959). Incrementalism rejects the notion of long term goals.
It argues that specific courses of action for smaller, more specific goals are conducive to effective action, and that decision making involves reaching an agreement within a political framework by a means of successive approximations.
Lindblom's critique of rational planning focused on the inability of decision makers to truly consider all values because of incomplete information and the political system's continuous adjustment process. Incrementalism, though, comes from the same root (empirical/rational), it uses the same constructs and vocabulary -logic, sequence, goals -altering them just a little.
The advocacy paradigm also attempts to fill one of the gaps of the comprehensive paradigm by focusing on economic and social pluralism. Advocacy empowers the powerless, suggests a plural public interest, public participation and a planner whose role is spokesperson for the powerless group. Paul Davidoff (1965) [The power/coercive root] is based on the application of power in some form, political or otherwise.
The influence process involved is basically that of compliance of those with less power to the plans, directions, and leadership of those with greater power. (Bennis, Benne, and Chin 1969).
The Marxist paradigm describes the conflicts of planning in a democracy under capitalism using an economic perspective based on class schisms ( Fainstein and Fainstein 1982) . It promotes central control of decision making, and citizen participation to encourage discourse.
Sub-categories of the Marxist paradigm are the Radical and Progressive theories. The Radical theory suggests a revolutionary mass movement process against the existing powers, but it offers no formative agenda (Kravitz 1968  The power/coercive root is particularly relevant to contingency theory in helping to understand the context in which planning takes place. While perhaps more difficult to implement than those paradigms in the rational/empirical root, it is more useful in identifying stakeholders and their relationships to one another.

NORMATIVE/RE-EDUCATIVE ROOT
Similar to the two previously discussed roots, the normative/ re-educative root is a reflection of the historical context from which it emerged. The period since approximately 1972 has been called post-modern (Beauregard 1989;Schimak 1991 processes, customized and smaller scale production complexes (Beauregard 1989). The paradigms of the normative/re-educative root are, in fact, a modern (rational/ empirical or power/coercive) response to post-modernity. The post-modern condition is quite daunting to a profession (and society) whose initial strength and legitimacy were founded on the basis of the teachings of the Enlightenment and the structure of bureaucracy.
The post-modernist cultural critique is a complex one. It includes a turn to historical allusion and spatial understandings, the abandonment of critical distance for ironic commentary, the embracing of multiple discourses and the rejection of totalizing ones, a skepticism towards master narratives and general social theories, a disinterest in the performativity of knowledge, the rejection of notions of progress and enlightenment, and a tendency towards political acquiescence. (Beauregard 1989 The rational/empirical framework assumes decisions are made based on evidence, criteria, and logic by unbiased experts. According to Innes (1990), this is a narrow view of knowledge that no longer serves as a valid basis for planning.
The model of the linkages between knowledge and policy is grounded in an interpretive or phenomenological view of knowledge, rather than in the positivist perspective. It is more contextual, more evolutionary, and more complex than the scientific model. It regards formal, identifiable decisions as only a small part of all that leads to public action.
It takes a broader view of what counts as knowledge. (Innes 1990 First, such an account must do justice to the real, messy settings in which planning takes place. Second, it must embrace the everyday experiences of planners and make sense of their perceptions of the complexities, uncertainties, and ambiguities of daily practice. Third, it must explicitly address normative questions of information distortions, manipulated participation, legitimation, and ideological versus legitimate exercises of power. (Forester 1990: 10) Forester's answer to the dilemma of dichotomies is that while they exist as extremes in theory, in any progressive practice they are integrated. The post-modern planner's role is one of mediator, communicator, and educator.
This brief survey of planning paradigms and their roots frames the assessment of contingency theory.
Due to contingency planning's situation-driven paradigm, contingency is linked to each of the three roots. It is this fact which makes the contingency model so complex; it accurately reflects the world in which we function and plan. It is for this reason that contingency can not be categorized as a paradigm.
As discussed earlier, a paradigm must have roots in a singular philosophical field and must be capable of describing and predicting behavior. While contingency offers a good description of practice oriented behavior, it is only through strategic planning that it structures behavior.
Problems of effect! veness and ethical behavior, however, repeatedly accent the need to develop a practice-oriented · planning theory which could suggest actions specific to historical, social, and political-economic circumstances. (Beauregard 1984:258) STRATEGIC PLANNING Faludi ( 1969) has outlined the differences between a "theory of . planning" and a "theory in planning." Contingency conforms more closely to the former -a normative "theory of planning".
Yet, because contingency is practically inseparable in practice from strategic planning, it is equally a "theory in planning". At which point, the need to examine 20 strategic planning emerges. an attempt to move planning to a more decision oriented focus.
As a result of its basis in contingency theory, strategic planning is more limited in scope and time frame, and more sensitive to the decision environment in which planners operate.
A contextually grounded, situationally based approach to strategy promotes an alternative view to the predominant perspective of strategy as technique.
In addition, the long standing arguments between incremental and synoptic, and short term versus long term approaches are somewhat displaced by this view.
The appropriateness of strategy is conditioned by context and situation, and as the latter changes sao should strategic orientations and technique. (Bryson and Einsweiler 1988: 103) Strategic planning operates on the following assumptions: planning is conducted within an institutional context; municipal! ties are in competition with one another for a greater tax base and employment opportunities, so competitive 21 niches should be exploited; and assessment of strengths and weaknesses is critical. This type of planning borrows heavily from the corporate structure, in that it is based on the ideas of the ascendancy of the individual in a capitalist society.
Classic comprehensive planning seeks shared, cooperative solutions and tries to smooth out the differences between public and private goals.
Strategic planning is a response to a turbulent and interconnected environment using a specific set of concepts, procedures and tools. It is designed to identify and resolve issues while using existing goals and objectives to translate into work programs and budgets.
An "issue" is a difficulty or problem that has a significant influence on the way an organization functions or its ability to achieve a desired future for which there is no agreed upon response (Roberts 1991). An issue is strategic if it is perceived to involve decisions and actions related to changes in the basic long term goals of an organization and if it involves resource allocation and specific course of action that differ from the status quo.
Postulating that politics is a critical element in the operation of planning, strategic planning does not assume a unitary interest or consensus.
It attempts to assess the internal and external environment in which the planning process and the identified issue exist. Unlike long range planning, which assumes that current trends will continue, 22 strategic planning assumes trends will discontinue and new trends will emerge. Because it is more narrowly focused on specific issues, strategic planning has a more rigorous implementation directive. Long range planning is generally conducted without the review of key decision makers and generally focuses on individual functional elements rather than linkages among them.
The statement that there are three different approaches to the identification of strategic issues (direct, goals, and a vision of success approach) may raise the hackles of some planning theorists and practitioners who believe the start should always be with issues or goals or an idealized scenario for the organization or community. We argue, however, that what will work best probably depends on the situation, and that the wise planner will assess the situation carefully and choose an approach accordingly. (Bryson and Einsweiler 1988:90) Strategic planning emphasizes action, consideration of broad and diverse stakeholders, attention to external opportunities and threats, internal strengths and weaknesses, and attention to actual or potential competitors.
The planner's role is mainly one of a hybrid which mixes political and technical skills.
The strategic planning process is iterative and begins with an initial agreement to identify an issue. Case studies that test for cont~ngency theory include a study of what planners "do" in the United states by Hoch (1991), education reform in developing countries by Rondinelli, Middleton, and Verspoor ( 1989), and Meyer and Belobaba' s ( 1982)  answers and then rank them.
Less than a third of the respondents completed both parts of this type of question format. Also, upon consideration of the categories listed, the categories were either not inclusive of the entire range of actual options, or they were subject to interpretation and overlap. For example, question eight, an "educator" may be regarded as both a "communicator" and "mediator"; and actually all categories involve identification with the "decisionmaker" category. Similarly, in question twelve, there may really be little difference between the skills of "research" and "reading/ writing".
The problem was remedied by ignoring the request to rank categories and rather than examine the specific set of categories chosen, the number circled were tallied to determine if a practitioner categorized him/herself as a hybrid or generalist with many roles and many skills, or a more focused type of pl· anner with a more limited need for skills.
To assess whether there is a relationship between time allotted for decision-making (question nine) and the decision process (question eleven-b), the respondents who chose "one day" or "one week" were grouped in one category and the others, "one month" and "one year", in a second category.
This was also necessary because some respondents indicated a middle point, or circled a range of responses instead of just one.

31
The letter was composed to accompany the questionnaire, in which the RI -APA members were asked to mail back the survey (Appendix B). Though a return address was designated on the questionnaire, self addressed stamped envelopes were not included.

FINDINGS
From the total of one-hundred and fifty questionnaires mailed on October 31, 1991, thirty were returned completed.
The response rate was therefore twenty percent. The remaining respondents either did not answer that question.
Question eleven-b asked the practitioners to respond to a similar question, but in a shorter version. Fifteen described the planning process as situation-dependent; ten described it as ideally regular; and one answered that it was highly regular.
Question twelve was close ended and asked about the types of skills the practitioners used at work. From the thirty respondents, only four answered that they use only one or two types of skills. Those four practi ti one rs were in the position of either Planning Director or Planning Specialist.
All the rest indicated that they employed three or more skills to do their work.
Question thirteen involved three parts, a, b, and c.
This set of questions probably demanded the most time and thought compared to the rest of the survey. The respondents were asked to describe and compare their ideal and actual planning process. In all cases, the two descriptions were different. Three wrote that their is no ideal process, The ideal process is a figment of some theorist's mind -it doesn't exist.
Thirteen wrote that the ideal process resembles the comprehensive paradigm and that the actual process is marred by a lack of resources including staff, money and time, and that politics in the form of interest groups, personal feelings, and values equally complicate the actual process.
Six answered similarly, but blamed the difference purely on political pressures.

FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEWS
As mentioned previously, only one respondent described the planning process as "highly regular". He noted that the dynamics of the job were success oriented.
As a graduate of a Master's program in Community Planning, he said that there is a difference between studying the planning process and the actual implementation of plans. Reaching the accomplishment stage involves acknowledging political and financial responsibilities. As Hudson (1979) states: Having a planner with the ability to mix approaches is the only way to assure that they can respond with sensitivity to the diversity of problems and settings confronted, and to the complexity of every situation.
Hudson goes on to explain that the planning styles that have been suggested since the classic comprehensive paradigm are rtot meant to replace the classic paradigm, but rather to broaden the perspective on issues and offer another set of voices for articulating the public interest. The contingency paradigm suggests moving away from the "one best way" approach to planning and suggests that the appropriate range of choices regarding organizational structure and process is contingent on any number of relevant factors (Hudson 1979 This practitioner acknowledged that he has become quite cynical of the environment in which planning takes place.
After being in the profession for eighteen years, he felt that there is no such thing as an ideal planning process, but if there were such a thing, he would be willing to try it.
His undergraduate education in planning has since been supplemented by experience in the field of private and public planning.
Apparently he enjoyed private planning practice more than his current work for the State, ... while special interest groups usually have good intentions, you end up spending too much time with them, trying to meet their needs, and then you end up spending less time with the other (unrepresented) constituents.
Respondent thirty complained that the pressures of politics skewed his planning work and produced unfair reports with which he was not pleased. When asked if he ever considered · returning to school to earn a Master's degree, he said that the experience he was getting on the job was more than he could probably ever learn in a classroom setting.

SUMMARY
The majority of questionnaires returned were entirely completed and contained thoughtful answers. A response rate of twenty percent is sufficient to draw some valid deductions and conduct analysis of the findings. The ones that were not completed had written their telephone numbers on the questionnaire. These respondents were generally easy to reach by telephone and were willing to spend some time having the questions they originally failed to answer, explained, and then offered responses. This group tends to describe the planning process as ideally regular.
Although the difference between describing planning as 11 si tuational 11 and 11 ideally regular" (see question eleven-b) is a fine one, the implications of the differences can be examined in terms of the practitioners' ages, i.e. the independent variable 8 • It appears that the linkage between planning education and the world context (including economics, politics, and historic events) have had a great influence on how planners plan. Those who are older were educated during a time in which the validity of the rational/empirical root was hardly questioned.
Perhaps as they spent more time in planning, they began to realize that planning is not a linear process that can objectively solve complicated problems through the means of scientific deduction.
And yet, in the 1990's, the older planners cling to the notion that planning is ideally a regular process. Similarly, those who worked in planning more than eight years tended to identify with a singular, as opposed to a multifaceted, planning role.

TRENDS IN PLANNING
Planning theorists, on the fringe of the field, in the 1990's are examining the link between knowledge and action, redefining what constitutes knowledge, and generally reexamining the profession as a whole. They are evaluating how the field has changed from its origins in land use. These trends have resulted in the movement of the focus of planning to the planning process. The client of the planning process has become the planner rather than the citizens or city for 8 A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Urban Studies, in 1976, similarly found the independent variable to be age.
This reevaluation of planning and the planning process may prove to be detrimental to the profession, due to the strong possibility of disenfranchisement of the object of the planning process, i.e. the citizens or city.
As academia searches to recenter the profession, the focus of planning is on the process, rather than on the object of planning.
The renewed interest in understanding the link between knowledge and action originated from a perceived lack of communication between academicians and practitioners. Where once theory was driven by academic thought, the actions of practitioners are now being transcribed to theory (Glasmeier and Kahn 1989: 7). Currently, the trend is toward understanding what the practitioner does on a day-to-day basis, and developing a theory from that information.
Contingency is one such theory.
The definition of knowledge is expanding. Planning has always been an interdisciplinary field, but trends show that this is becoming increasingly so. Due to the general ascendance of the value based social sciences, the definition of knowledge now includes qualitative data elicited by interpersonal communicative skills.
Though the goal of this type of research is to strengthen the bond between knowledge and action, it may, at the same time, widen the gap between the two. As the theorist looks to the practitioner for a validation of planning theory, the theorist learns that the practitioner is still concerned with concepts from the 1940's -physical planning, land use, and now including environmental aspects and urban design. The classic comprehensive paradigm still offers the planner a protective shield, behind which the planner is the "objective technician". At public hearings or meetings with officials "logical", "objective" and "rational" are still words used to convey a proposal's quality at public hearings or meetings with officials.
As the intellectualization of planning practice, planning theory attempts to interpret the world and suggest ways of changing it. But the two objectives -theory and practice -have not always been equally pursued.
More often than not, planning theorists have opted to establish a theoretical object, the planning process, distinct from the built environment that serves as the object for most planning practitioners.
As a result, the subsequent theory has been of little utility to those who labor in the field of action rather than in the realm of contemplation. (Beauregard 1984:255) Beauregard's eloquent critique is generally on target, yet it is perhaps too encompassing. If one divides the object of planning into the categories of physical and social, then it is the category of social planning that is experiencing greater problems.
Physical planning, and in particular, environmental planning and urban design, are still guided by the rational/empirical root.

43
The gap between theorists and practitioners continues to widen. Levy (1992) cites both radical and social planning as having caused the greatest rifts in the relationship between theory and practice. Levy identifies these two theories and suggests that they do not have agendas that can be practically applied.
On the other hand, planning will never change if innovative ideas are judged on their present inapplicability.
The practitioner is struggling with concepts such as the notions which Forester (1989) and Baum (1990) articulatedplanning as embodied in politics and organizational structure.
But as the profession continues to push for self-legitimation, it is faced with many more avenues of applicability, such as health and education planning, than in the period from the 1940's to the 1970's. The scope of planning is being defined more broadly. It is more versatile and, as a result more confusing.
If whatever practitioners do on the job conforms to some theory that theoreticians design to legitimize the planning process, then many planning styles could be acceptable.
According to Levy (1992), there are several trends in planning which suggest that not only is the profession actively searching for a better and more widely agreed upon paradigm, but that contingency theory offers elements of that possible paradigm.
But as many who are concerned about planning have noted there is an overarching problem. The field does not seem to have any guiding principle or central paradigm. The comprehensive plan lost its dominance several decades ago and nothing has come along to replace it.
Planners often discuss planning as a process, but much less frequently discuss where this process is to lead. (Levy 1992: 81) The normative range of planning topics has expanded in response to citizen demand, but the profession does not yet have the expertise to address this demand.
Though planning has acknowledged the political element as critical, substantively, planning now tends to follow the election cycle and plans are written mainly for the short term. Citizen involvement has increased, but citizen groups tend to form in opposition to topics, rather than in favor of them. As Respondent twenty-one wrote, [The ideal process differs from the actual process in that] there is very little positive citizen involvement.
Planners, then, are often on the defensive, and may cynically see citizens and participatory legislation as barriers to action.
Plans reflect one or a few interests and are developed in reaction to historical momentum, politics, and de facto variances in frequently cacophonous debates among promoters, NIMBY's, demagogues, and bureaucrats. (Respondent fourteen)

45
The general lack of funding encourages planners to focus on projects that tend to either generate money for a municipality or generate money for the planning office. Economic development projects bring in the most funding support. This pursuit of funding support encourages short term planning.
The virtues of flexibility, improvisation, and quick response are more greatly valued than thorough, long range, comprehensive planning.

SUMMARY
The current field of planning is in a complex and confused state. Concerns regarding its identity and ethical standards abound.
Is the profession perhaps searching for one best theory?
The profession found its stability and leg! timacy in the 1940 's when the paradigm of classic comprehensiveness was adopted.
Planners shared a common bond of the assumptions which grounded this paradigm. This shared world view may rest at the heart of true professional legitimization. It may encourage the profession to again settle on one single paradigm, similar to that proposed in Galloway and Mahayni's model (1977). The profession, in its struggle to redefine its boundaries and adapt to contemporary needs, is challenged by a growing lack of faith in the rational/empirical root and its ability to predict and plan for the long term. Could not the profession find an alternative agreed upon paradigm which would bind the community of planners and offer legitimation once again?
Sue Hendler ( 1991)  This is the distinction Andreas Faludi (1973) has in mind when he discusses theories of planning, i.e. the process, as opposed to theories in planning, i.e., objects to which the process is applied.

48
The modern comprehensive paradigm is the dominant paradigm to which most practitioners, who plan on a contingency basis, are ideologically committed. This is in part because the rational/empirical root is still dominant in other professions, such as economics, medicine, and law. The language of empiricism is one that is shared and understood by many professional groups. The modern comprehensive paradigm's theoretical language is therefore accessible to all groups, from citizens to corporations to politicians. The factor that makes the modern comprehensive paradigm most attractive to planners is that the paradigm is promoted as theoretically omniscient: it can predict the future and create goals that have the strength to overcome barriers to guide future action.
Modern comprehensiveness is therefore the ideal, but as the survey findings show, not the reality of day-to-day planning practice.

THE FUTURE OF THE PLANNING PROFESSION
Though the modern comprehensive paradigm is dominant in the planning profession and in contingency theory, as discussed earlier, the paradigm faces challenges. Many authors suggest that there is currently no singular paradigm to offer a unified approach to practice (Schimak 1991;Hoch 1991;Ferraro 1991 Contingency theory may be a vehicle toward a better understanding of the link between theory and practice, but may not be the final product of this exploration.
Rather than a single model of planning and community intervention with a precise set of roles and attitudes, planning has increasingly been defined in multi-model terms (Friedmann and Hudson 1974;Hudson 1979;Rothman 1974).
Though it may be easier to choose a singular paradigm with       I am currently researching the field of planning theory, which specifically involves the question, "How do planners in Rhode Island make decisions." My preliminary literature review has revealed a gap between the ideal planning process and how practitioners function in the field.
The questionnaire that I have sent you, and all other APA members in Rhode Island, is of primary importance to my study. Rhode Island APA President Kevin Flynn reviewed my thesis abstract and offered his assistance by supplying me with the RI-APA membership list.
I sincerely hope that you will find the time to assist me in my research by completing the questionnaire and by sending it back to me.
The second phase of my study will involve follow up interviews. At the end of the questionnaire I ask whether I may call you to schedule such an interview, or at that time, just conduct one over the phone.
I appreciate all the time and information you can give me.
If you are interested in receiving a copy of the compiled answers, please note that on the questionnaire. In the final product I will not use your names or the names of the communities in which you work, so please feel free to answer candidly. Thank you.