当多样性失去优势

IF 3.3 2区 经济学 Q1 REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING Journal of the American Planning Association Pub Date : 2023-07-14 DOI:10.1080/01944363.2023.2219242
Matthew Jordan-Miller Kenyatta
{"title":"当多样性失去优势","authors":"Matthew Jordan-Miller Kenyatta","doi":"10.1080/01944363.2023.2219242","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Problem, research strategy, and findings Since the 1960s, African Americans have advocated to be systematically represented and addressed in planning education and practice. Despite burgeoning diversity work, it is unclear how specifically planning scholars have listened. Using a bibliometric and content analysis of the 21 oldest and most-cited planning journals, I analyzed the presence of race, diversity, and African Americans in 19,645 peer-reviewed research articles published between 1990 and 2020. Of these articles, only 4.8% focused explicitly on racial diversity in the abstracts, titles, keywords, or within their main text. Within these 944 U.S. diversity articles, nearly one-fourth (24.47%, n = 231) focused on African Americans. Overall, just 1.17% of the total U.S.-focused planning research in these journals focused on African Americans in this 3-decade period. Of these Black urbanism research articles, an evolving set of 34 themes and 105 story beats built on each other in six story arcs: a) Black housing, segregation, and gentrification; b) Black entrepreneurship and employment; c) Black ecology and environmentalism; d) Black arts, culture, and politics; and e) Black intersectionality. In addition to offering the first quantitative study on Black urbanism since 1990, two main analytical insights are that Black urbanism is a small literature, and specific contours exist to grow Black urbanism beyond its small canon in planning. Limitations to these findings include the small literature size, the lack of engagement with Black urbanism in a broader context than planning, technological barriers for mining older articles from archived databases, and understanding Black urbanism beyond a provincial focus on the United States. Takeaway for practice I offer two suggestions for planning scholars and practitioners: Avoid race-neutral diversity language when practicing in or publishing about Black contexts and recognize that a canon of Black urbanism exists.","PeriodicalId":48248,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Planning Association","volume":"89 1","pages":"524 - 539"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When Diversity Lost the Beat\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Jordan-Miller Kenyatta\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/01944363.2023.2219242\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Problem, research strategy, and findings Since the 1960s, African Americans have advocated to be systematically represented and addressed in planning education and practice. Despite burgeoning diversity work, it is unclear how specifically planning scholars have listened. Using a bibliometric and content analysis of the 21 oldest and most-cited planning journals, I analyzed the presence of race, diversity, and African Americans in 19,645 peer-reviewed research articles published between 1990 and 2020. Of these articles, only 4.8% focused explicitly on racial diversity in the abstracts, titles, keywords, or within their main text. Within these 944 U.S. diversity articles, nearly one-fourth (24.47%, n = 231) focused on African Americans. Overall, just 1.17% of the total U.S.-focused planning research in these journals focused on African Americans in this 3-decade period. Of these Black urbanism research articles, an evolving set of 34 themes and 105 story beats built on each other in six story arcs: a) Black housing, segregation, and gentrification; b) Black entrepreneurship and employment; c) Black ecology and environmentalism; d) Black arts, culture, and politics; and e) Black intersectionality. In addition to offering the first quantitative study on Black urbanism since 1990, two main analytical insights are that Black urbanism is a small literature, and specific contours exist to grow Black urbanism beyond its small canon in planning. Limitations to these findings include the small literature size, the lack of engagement with Black urbanism in a broader context than planning, technological barriers for mining older articles from archived databases, and understanding Black urbanism beyond a provincial focus on the United States. Takeaway for practice I offer two suggestions for planning scholars and practitioners: Avoid race-neutral diversity language when practicing in or publishing about Black contexts and recognize that a canon of Black urbanism exists.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48248,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Planning Association\",\"volume\":\"89 1\",\"pages\":\"524 - 539\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Planning Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2023.2219242\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Planning Association","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2023.2219242","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REGIONAL & URBAN PLANNING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自20世纪60年代以来,非裔美国人一直主张在规划教育和实践中系统地体现和解决非裔美国人的问题。尽管多样性方面的工作正在蓬勃发展,但尚不清楚规划学者在多大程度上听取了这些建议。通过对21本历史最悠久、被引用最多的规划期刊进行文献计量和内容分析,我分析了1990年至2020年间发表的19645篇同行评议研究文章中种族、多样性和非裔美国人的存在。在这些文章中,只有4.8%在摘要、标题、关键词或正文中明确关注种族多样性。在这944个美国多样性文章中,近四分之一(24.47%,n = 231)关注非洲裔美国人。总体而言,在这30年期间,这些期刊中以美国为重点的规划研究中,只有1.17%关注非洲裔美国人。在这些黑人城市主义研究文章中,一套不断发展的34个主题和105个故事节奏在6个故事弧线中相互建立:a)黑人住房、种族隔离和士绅化;b)黑人创业和就业;c)黑人生态与环保主义;d)黑人艺术、文化和政治;e)黑人的交叉性。除了提供了自1990年以来第一个关于黑人城市主义的定量研究之外,两个主要的分析见解是:黑人城市主义是一个小文献,以及存在特定的轮廓,使黑人城市主义超越其在规划中的小经典。这些发现的局限性包括文献规模小,缺乏在规划之外的更广泛背景下与黑人城市主义的接触,从存档数据库中挖掘旧文章的技术障碍,以及超越对美国省级重点的黑人城市主义的理解。我为规划学者和实践者提供了两条建议:在黑人背景下进行实践或发表关于黑人背景的文章时,避免使用种族中立的多样性语言,并认识到黑人城市主义的典范是存在的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
When Diversity Lost the Beat
Abstract Problem, research strategy, and findings Since the 1960s, African Americans have advocated to be systematically represented and addressed in planning education and practice. Despite burgeoning diversity work, it is unclear how specifically planning scholars have listened. Using a bibliometric and content analysis of the 21 oldest and most-cited planning journals, I analyzed the presence of race, diversity, and African Americans in 19,645 peer-reviewed research articles published between 1990 and 2020. Of these articles, only 4.8% focused explicitly on racial diversity in the abstracts, titles, keywords, or within their main text. Within these 944 U.S. diversity articles, nearly one-fourth (24.47%, n = 231) focused on African Americans. Overall, just 1.17% of the total U.S.-focused planning research in these journals focused on African Americans in this 3-decade period. Of these Black urbanism research articles, an evolving set of 34 themes and 105 story beats built on each other in six story arcs: a) Black housing, segregation, and gentrification; b) Black entrepreneurship and employment; c) Black ecology and environmentalism; d) Black arts, culture, and politics; and e) Black intersectionality. In addition to offering the first quantitative study on Black urbanism since 1990, two main analytical insights are that Black urbanism is a small literature, and specific contours exist to grow Black urbanism beyond its small canon in planning. Limitations to these findings include the small literature size, the lack of engagement with Black urbanism in a broader context than planning, technological barriers for mining older articles from archived databases, and understanding Black urbanism beyond a provincial focus on the United States. Takeaway for practice I offer two suggestions for planning scholars and practitioners: Avoid race-neutral diversity language when practicing in or publishing about Black contexts and recognize that a canon of Black urbanism exists.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
10.70%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: For more than 70 years, the quarterly Journal of the American Planning Association (JAPA) has published research, commentaries, and book reviews useful to practicing planners, policymakers, scholars, students, and citizens of urban, suburban, and rural areas. JAPA publishes only peer-reviewed, original research and analysis. It aspires to bring insight to planning the future, to air a variety of perspectives, to publish the highest quality work, and to engage readers.
期刊最新文献
Housing Precarity in Six European and North American Cities: Threatened by the Loss of a Safe, Stable, and Affordable Home Navigating Cultural Difference in Planning: How Cross-Border Adaptation Nurtured Cosmopolitan Competence Among U.S.-Taught Chinese Practitioners Food Access After Disasters The Changing American Neighborhood: The Meaning of Place in the Twenty-First Century The Changing American Neighborhood Alan Mallach and Todd Swanstrom (2023). Cornell University Press, 396 pages. $31.95 (paperback) Welcome to the New Editorial Group
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1