Journal of Iranian Architecture Studies

Journal of Iranian Architecture Studies

Pragmatic Evaluation: An Opportunity to Reform Policies and Practices in Targeted Areas (Concrete Case: National Regeneration Policy in Iran)

Document Type : Original

Authors
Morteza Hadi Jaberi Moghaddam 1
Shima Saghandali 2
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Urban Planning and Management, School of Urban Planning, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran.
2 Department of Urban Planning and Management, School of Urban Planning College of Fine Arts University of Tehran.
10.22052/jias.2026.259028.1548
Abstract
For years, "urban deterioration" has been a major concern for experts and for the country's planning and management system. Despite multiple institutions at different levels, policy formulation, the preparation and implementation of numerous plans, and the allocation of substantial financial resources, the problems associated with this concern have persisted. In most cases, the objectives set to address this issue have not been achieved. At the same time, the scale of the problem has continued to increase annually across both quantitative and qualitative dimensions. The dominance of the rationalist approach in the planning and evaluation system, with its emphasis on predictability, quantitative measurement, and decision-making based on established knowledge, offers limited capacity to address the complexity, uncertainty, and contextual differences inherent in planning processes. This study applies a pragmatic approach to evaluate urban regeneration policy in Iran, using the National Sustainable Urban Regeneration Document as its case study. To this end, after examining the foundations of pragmatism and its distinction from the rationalist paradigm, this study employs Charles Hoch’s framework for pragmatic evaluation. The findings indicate that the National Urban Regeneration Document faces fundamental shortcomings within this framework, including (1) effective and real alternative options did not exist, and the process of formulating the document has not resulted from meaningful dialogue among the actors involved; (2) the document has failed to function as an effective metaphor capable of generating the necessary conditions for change, improving existing conditions, and facilitating the formulation of successful plans for target areas; (3) no shared and reliable conception of the "public interest" has been established; and (4) the situated experiences and context-dependent knowledge of actors have not been sufficiently incorporated into the production of knowledge and the formulation of new solutions. Accordingly, pragmatic evaluation, by shifting the focus from formal compliance with predetermined objectives toward context, experience, consequences, and the processes through which interventions are formulated and revised, can provide an alternative framework for critically examining and rethinking urban regeneration policies.
Keywords
Evaluation
Pragmatism
Urban Regeneration
Rational Approach
Metaphor
Targeted Urban Areas
جابری‌مقدم، مرتضی‌هادی، و فاطمه فرجام‌طلب. 1399. تبیین یک رویکرد پراگماتیک به موضوع مکان‌سازی در بافت‌های تاریخی شهر ایرانی. مجلۀ مطالعات معماری ایران 9 (17): 219ـ237.
حبیبی، سید محسن، و ملیحه مقصودی. 1386. مرمت شهری: تعاریف، نظریه‌ها، تجارب، منشورها و قطعنامه‌های جهانی. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
حناچی، پیروز. 1392. مرمت شهری در بافت‌های تاریخی ایران. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
شرکت مادرتخصصی عمران و بهسازی شهری ایران. 1394. مجموعه قوانین و مقررات بازآفرینی شهری پایدار. تهران: شرکت مادرتخصصی عمران و بهسازی شهری ایران.
شورای‌عالی شهرسازی و معماری ایران. 1394. مصوبۀ شورای عالی شهرسازی و معماری ایران درخصوص طرح جامع شهر سمنان (https://rc.majlis.ir/en/law/show/938055 دسترسی در تاریخ 15 مرداد 1405)
کامروا، محمدعلی. 1386. شهرسازی معاصر ایران. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
Barker, P., X. Chen, and H. Andersen. 2003. Kuhn on Concepts and Categorization. In Thomas Kuhn, edited by T. Nickles, 212-224. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barnes, B. 1982. T.S.KUHN and Social Science. London: The MACMILLAN Press LTD.
Clifford, B., S. Gunn, A. Inch, A. Schoneboom, J. Slade, M. Tait, and G. Vigar. 2024. The Future for Planners: Commercialisation, Professionalism and the Public Interest in the UK. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
Dalton, L. 1986. Why the Rational Paradigm Persists: The Resistance of Professional Education and Practice to Alternative Forms of Planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research 5 (3): 147-153.
Dewey, J. 1938. Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Dorner, D. 1996. The Logic of Failure: Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ferraro, G. 1996. Planning as Creative Interpretation. In Explorations in Planning Theory, edited by S. Mandelbaum, 312-325. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
Flyvbjerg, B. 2001. Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flyvbjerg, B. 2004. Phronetic Planning Research: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections. Planning Theory & Practice 5 (3): 283-306.
Franklin, A. 1984. Are Paradigms Incommensurable? The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 35 (1): 57-60.
Friedmann, J. 1987. Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Healey, P. 1997. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. London: Macmillan.
Healey, P. 2009. The Pragmatic Tradition in Planning Thought. Journal of Planning Education and Research 28 (3): 277-292.
Hoch, C. J. 1982. Book Review: Cities by Contract: The Polittics of Municipal Incorporation: by Gary J. Miller. In Urban Studies 19 (4): 422-424.
Hoch, C. J. 1984. Pragmatism, Planning, and Power. Journal of Planning Education and Research 4 (2): 53-75.
Hoch, C. J. 1996. A Pragmatic Inquiry about Planning and Power. In Explorations in Planning Theory, edited by S. Mandelbaum, 30-45. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
Hoch, C. J. 2002. Evaluating Plans Pragmatically. Planning Theory 1 (1): 53-75.
Hoch, C. J. 2007a. Making Plans: Representation and Intention. Planning Theory 6 (1): 16-35.
Hoch, C. J. 2007b. Pragmatic Communicative Action Theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research 26 (3): 272–283.
Hoch, C. J. 2009. Planning Craft: How Planners Compose Plans. Planning Theory 8 (3): 219-241.
Hoch, C. J. 2017. Pragmatism and Plan Making. In Encounters in Planning Thought: 16 Autobiographical Essays from Key Thinkers in Spatial Planning, edited by B. Haselsberger, 297-314. New York: Routledge.
Hoch, C. J. 2019. Pragmatic Spatial Planning: Practical Theory for Professionals. New York: Routledge.
Kuhn, T. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McMullin, E. 1988. Construction and Constraint: The Shaping of Scientific Rationality. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Rorty, R. 2012. Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth: Philosophical Papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sandercock, L., and K. Dovey. 2002. Pleasure, Politics, and the “Public Interest”: Melbourne’s Riverscape Revitalization. Journal of the American Planning Association 68 (2): 151-164.
Sanyal, B. 2020. The Relevance of Charles Hoch’s Pragmatism for International Development Planning. Planning Theory 19 (4): 463-472.
Schnegg, M., and J.Sommerschuh. 2026. Phenomenology, by Comparison: From Ethnographic Variation to Experiential Structure. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 25 (2).
Schön, Donald. A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals think in Action. London: Temple Smith.
Soler, L. 2004. The Incommensurability Problem: Evolution, Current Approaches and Recent Issues. Philosophia Scientiæ 8 (1): 1-38.
Vidyarthi, S. 2019. Charles Hoch: A Pesky Pragmatist. Planning Theory 19 (4): 445-451.
Willis, R. 2019. The Use of Composite Narratives to Present Interview Findings. Qualitative Research 19 (4): 471-480.
Journal of Iranian Architecture Studies
Volume 15, Issue 29
September 2026
Pages 229-251