Analysis and Assessment of Communicative Action Indicators and Variables; a Case of Tehran city, Iran

Document Type : Original Article


1 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, Qazvin Branch, IslamicAzad University, Qazvin, Iran

2 Professor, Department of Urban Planning and Design, Fine Arts Faculty, Tehran University, Iran


While there are a wide variety of studies about communicative action theory of Habermas, there is the need for building of indicators and variables for quantitative methods of assessing this concept in a particular case study. Especially as the development of communicative action theory has created new perspectives in urban planning, it is necessary to assess and promote this concept in cities and neighborhoods. The purpose of this paper is to identify communicative action indicators and variables and assess the communicative action in Tehran city as the case study. Seven indicators were derived of theoretical framework, which are Urban Space, Lifeworld, Amenity, Social Capital, Communicative Rationality, Critical View Point and Economic Development. Variables related to each one were also identified and after testing reliability and validity, were served as a basis for assessing communicative action in Tehran city. In this regard, the hypotheses of the research were elaborated on the existence of the significant relationship between the seven indicators and communicative action in Tehran city. This research has been conducted with quantitative analysis based on field studies. Research hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling in Lisrel software, using data related to 384 questionnaires. Results show that all indicators have a significant relationship with communicative action in Tehran city and among them the strongest impacts relate to social capital, amenity and lifeworld.


  1. Allmendinger, P. (2009) Planning Theory. Palgrave MacMillan, China.
  2. Anderson, P. (2005) Spectrum – From right to left in the world of ideas. Verso, London, UK.
  3. Baert, P., (1998) Social Theory in the 20th Century. Cambridge / New York: Polity Press & New York University Press. (translated into Italian, Spanish and Chinese).
  4. Callinicos, A. (1999) Social theory – A historical introduction. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.
  5. Cook, D. (2005) "The sundered totality of system and lifeworld." Historical Materialism 13(4): 55-78.
  6. Davoudpour, Z., Rezapour, M., (2016) The conceptual model of the relationship between institutional transparency, citizen trust and satisfaction, a case study of Tehran city, Iran. Int. J. Architect. Eng. Urban Plan, 26(2): 131-139.
  7. Duckett, Dominic, et al, (2017) Scenario planning as communicative action: Lessons from participatory exercises conducted for the Scottish livestock industry, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 114, 138–151.
  8. Finlayson, J. G. (2005) Habermas: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  9. Friedmann, J. (1987) Planning in the Public Domain. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  10. Forester, J. (1989) Planning in the Face of Power, Berkeley: University of California Press.
  11. Habermas, J. (1987) The theory of communicative action (vol. 2). Lifeword and system: A critique of functionalist reason. Thomas McCarthy (trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.
  12. Habermas, J. (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Oxford, Polity Press.
  13. Habermas, J. (1996) What is universal pragmatics? The Habermas Reader. Outhwaite, W. Cambridge, Polity Press: 118-131.
  14. Harvey Brown, R., Goodman, D., 2001. Jürgen Habermas' theory of communicative action: an incomplete project. In: Ritzer, G.A.S., B. (Eds.), Handbook of Social Theory. SAGE Publications, London.
  15. Healey,  P.  (1993)  Planning Through  Debate:  the  Communicative  Turn  in  Planning  Theory,  In: F. Fischer, J. Forester: The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, UCL Press, 233- 253.
  16. Healey, P.  (1997) Collaborative Planning:  Shaping  Places  in  Fragmented  Societies,   London: Macmillan.
  17. Huxley, Margo, (2000) The Limits to Communicative Planning, Journal of Planning Education and Research,19: 369- 377.
  18. Innes, J. E. (1995) Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative  action  and  interactive  practice.  Journal  of  Planning Education and Research 14:183-89.
  19. Jacobson, Thomas L. & Storey, J. Douglas (2004). Development Communication and Participation: Applying Habermasto a Case Study of Population Programs in Nepal. Communication Theory 14 (2), 99–121.
  20. Klosterman, R.E., (2011) Planning Theory Education: A Thirty-Year Review Journal of Planning Education and Research September 31: 319-331.
  21. MacCallum RC, Austin JT. (2000) Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology; 51:201–26.
  22. Matthews, P. (2012) ‘The longue durée of community engagement: New applications of critical theory in planning research’, Planning Theory, vol. 12, 2: pp. 139-157.
  23. Morris, M. (2001) Rethinking the Communicative Turn: Adorno,  Habermas, and the Problem of Communicative Freedom Albany: State University of New York Press.
  24. Noy, Ch. (2017) ‘Moral discourse and argumentation in the public sphere: Museums and their visitors’Discourse, Context & Media 16, 39–47.
  25. Olson, K., (2011) Deliberative democracy. In: Fultner, B. (Ed.), Jürgen Habermas, Key Concepts. Acumen, Durham.
  26. Rafiean, M., Shali, M. (2012) ‘Spatial Analysis of Tehran's Developmental Level by Urban Areas’, Moderator of Humanities, Planning and Approach of Space, Volume 16, Number 4.
  27. Richardson , T., (2004) Environmental assessment and planning theory: Four short stories about power, multiple rationalities and the need for situated ethical judgement, in: Planning for Sustainable Development, the practice and potential of Environmental Assessment, Proceedings from the 5th Nordic Environmental Assessment Conference, Edited by Tuija Hilding.
  28. Sager, T. (1994) Communicative Planning Theory, Aldershot et all, Avebury.
  29. Sager, T. (2006) The Logic of Critical Communicative Planning: Transaction Cost Alteration, Planning Theory, 5; 223.
  30. Stahl, B. C. (2002) "Life-World and Information Technology - a Habermasian Approach" In: Proceedings of the international workshop on Phenomenology, Information Technology and Management, edited by Lucas Introna, London School of Economics, London, 10 to 11 May 2002: 36 – 4.
  31. Tabibian, M., Rezapour, M., 2016, Assessment of urban resilience; a case study of Region 8 of Tehran city, Iran, Scientia Iranica. Transaction A, Civil Engineering 23 (4), 1699- 1707.
  32. Theodórsdóttir, A. H., (2004) The introduction of strategic environmental assessment to national level planning in Iceland, in: Planning for Sustainable Development - the practice and potential of Environmental Assessment, Proceedings from the 5th Nordic Environmental Assessment Conference, Edited by Tuija Hilding.
  33. Von, V.; Buhmann, A., (2010) Applying Habermas’ Theory to Public Relations: Potentials and Challenges, Diplomarbeit im integrierten Diplomstudiengang Medien-Planung, -Entwicklung und –Beratung Fachbereich für Sprach-, Literatur- und Medienwissenschaften Universität Siegen.
  34. Whittemore, Andrew H., (2014) Phenomenology and City Planning  Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 34(3) 301–308.
  35. Raykov T, Tomer A, Nesselroade JR. (1991) Reporting structural equation modeling results in psychology and aging: some proposed guidelines. Psychology and Aging; 6:499–503.