Knowing is all: or is it? Some reflections on why the acquisition of knowledge,focusing particularly on evaluation activities,does not always lead to action

This article examines the factors that influence whether the acquisition of knowledge leads on to action. It looks first at the ‘supply’ side, i.e. the kind of knowledge that is being acquired and whether it meets the needs of the intended users and is conducive to action; whether knowledge is a product or a process; the relevance of the positivist and constructivist approaches in this context; and whether participatory methods are required. The article then turns to the ‘demand’ side, and looks at possible reasons why decision‐takers may often seem to ignore new knowledge and evaluation findings. It suggests that evaluators may sometimes have unrealistic expectations of the kind of impact their reports should have. On the other hand there are factors leading to inertia and risk averseness that may stymie action. The importance of a ‘knowledge culture’ is emphasized if knowledge is to be turned into action. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Comment on Charles C. Bohl's “New urbanism and the city: potential applications and implications for distressed inner‐city neighborhoods"—the politics of design: The new urbanists vs. the grass roots

Abstract

This article briefly reviews the origins of New Urbanism and its manifesto as emerging from the social change movements of the 1960s, which evolved out of ideas of a previous generation of American and European designers living through the rise of modern industrialization. Arising from the same turmoil of the 1960s, and parallel to the New Urbanists, evolved a more loosely affiliated network of progressive academic and practicing planners and architects who have aligned themselves with disenfranchised underclasses not benefiting from the wealth of the postwar era and who take direction not from a manifesto but from a body of thinking linked to a broader intellectual and political agenda. This group works primarily with grassroots organizations in lower‐income communities and intentionally stays out of the limelight to better serve its constituents. The article concludes with ideas for possible collaboration between these professional groups serving different ends of the socioeconomic spectrum.