Münster’s Participation Landscape in the Lens of Situational Analysis: Political Arenas of Negotiation in transformative Urban Development Policy Authors Jana Weber FH Münster https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8061-3488 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.3105 Keywords: Arena , Participation , Urban planning, Situational analysis, Transformative urban development, Münster Abstract This paper reports on the examination of the participation landscape in Münster, considering it as a complex and situational structure within the context of transformative urban development policy. Following Adele Clarke’s Situational Analysis methodology, the paper uses social worlds and arenas as a conceptual framework for addressing empirical questions. Clarke’s understanding of arenas is linked to Jacques Rancière’s reflections on momentary political participation, shifting the analytical focus to relational, political, and conflictual negotiation arenas. Using multiple mappings derived from Situational Analysis, the paper examines how and when participation arenas are formed, and what dynamics and constellations of actors they reveal. Moments of political participation within these arenas indicate a basis of mutual understanding and trust between social worlds, enabling tensions, contradictions and conflicts to be recognized and negotiated. Additionally, the applicability of Situational Analysis to questions in urban and spatial research is discussed in this paper. Downloads Download data is not yet available. References Allmendinger, P.; Haughton, G. (2012): Post-political spatial planning in England: a crisis of consensus? In: Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 37, 1, 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2011.00468.x Alonso-Yanez, G.; de Castell, S.; Thumlert, K. (2022): Reflections on Re-Mapping Integrative Conservation. (Dis-)coordinate Participation in a Biosphere Reserve in Mexico. In: Clarke, A. E.; Washburn, R.; Friese, C. (Hrsg.): Situational analysis in practice. Mapping relationalities across disciplines. New York, 287–296. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003035923 Arnstein, S. R. (1969): A Ladder of Citizen Participation. In: Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35, 4, 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225 Bergold-Caldwell, D. (2020): Schwarze Weiblich*keiten. Intersektionale Perspektiven auf Bildungs- und Subjektivierungsprozesse. Bielefeld. https://doi.org/10.14361/9783839451960-fm Bertram, G. F. (2024): Warum werden wir hier beteiligt? (Un‑)Möglichkeitsstrukturen der Planungspartizipation in der multiplen Demokratie. In: pnd – rethinking planning, 1, 8–24. https://doi.org/10.18154/RWTH-2024-03985 Bertram, G. F.; Kienast, G. (2023): Planning-Related Protest as a Key to Understanding Urban Particularities. In: Urban Planning 8, 4, 326–339. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v8i4.7088 Bond, S. (2011): Negotiating a ‚democratic ethos‘. In: Planning Theory 10, 2, 161–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210383081 Clarke, A.E. (2003): Situational Analyses: Grounded Theory Mapping After the Postmodern Turn. In: Symbolic Interaction 26, 4, 553–576. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2003.26.4.553 Clarke, A. E. (2011): „Für mich ist die Darstellung der Komplexität der entscheidende Punkt.“ Zur Begründung der Situationsanalyse. In: Mey, G.; Mruck, K. (Hrsg.): Grounded Theory Reader. Wiesbaden, 109–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93318-4_6 Clarke, A. E. (2012): Situationsanalyse. Grounded Theory nach dem Postmodern Turn. Wiesbaden. Clarke, A. E. (2021): From Grounded Theory to Situational Analysis. What’s New? Why? How? In: Morse, J. M.; Bowers, B. J.; Charmaz, K.; Clarke, A.E.; Corbin, J.; Porr, C. J.; Stren, P. N. (Hrsg.): Developing Grounded Theory. The Second Generation Revisited. New York, 223–266. Clarke, A. E. (2022): Situating Grounded Theory and Situational Analysis in Interpretative Qualitative Inquiry. In: Clarke, A. E.; Washburn, R.; Friese, C. (Hrsg.): Situational analysis in practice. Mapping relationalities across disciplines. New York, 47–96. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003035923 Clarke, A. E.; Star, S. L. (2008): The social worlds framework: A theory/methods package. In: Hackett, E.J.; Amsterdamska, O.; Lynch, M.E.; Wajcam, J. (Hrsg.): The handbook of science and technology studies. Cambridge, 113–137. Clarke, A. E.; Washburn, R.; Friese, C. (Hrsg.) (2022): Situational analysis in practice. Mapping relationalities across disciplines. New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003035923 Cornwall, A. (2002): Locating Citizen Participation. In: IDS Bulletin 33, 2, i–x. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2002.tb00016.x Davidson, M.; Iveson, K. (2015): Recovering the politics of the city: From the ‚post-political city‘ to a ‚method of equality‘ for critical urban geography. In: Progress in Human Geography 39, 5, 543–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132514535284 Dikeç, M. (2005): Space, Politics, and the Political. In: Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 23, 2, 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1068/d364t Dikeç, M.; Swyngedouw, E. (2017): Theorizing the Politicizing City. In: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 41, 1, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12388 Glück, S. (2022): Making Energy Cultures Visible with Situational Analysis. In: Clarke, A. E.; Washburn, R.; Friese, C. (Hrsg.): Situational analysis in practice. Mapping relationalities across disciplines. New York, 151–180. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003035923 Gribat, N.; Lutz, M. (2021): Planung und Partizipation. Zwischen Emanzipation, Kollaboration und Vereinnahmung. In: Vogelpohl, A.; Michel, B.; Lebuhn, H.; Hoerning, J.; Belina, B. (Hrsg.): Raumproduktionen II. Theoretische Kontroversen und politische Auseinandersetzungen. Münster, 81–99. = Raumproduktionen 26. Gualini, E. (Hrsg.) (2015): Planning and Conflict. Critical Perspectives on Contentious Urban Developments. New York. Hagen, B.; Nassar, C.; Pijawka, D. (2017): The Social Dimension of Sustainable Neighborhood Design: Comparing Two Neighborhoods in Freiburg, Germany. In: Urban Planning 2, 4, 64–80. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v2i4.1035 Haraway, D. (1991): Simians, cyborgs, and women. The reinvention of nature. New York. Haumann, S. (2018): Partizipation als Konsens. Die ‚68er‘-Bewegung und der Paradigmenwechsel in der Stadtplanung. In: suburban. zeitschrift für kritische stadtforschung 6, 2/3, 189–196. https://doi.org/10.36900/suburban.v6i2/3.442 Healey, P. (1992): Planning through debate: the communicative turn in planning theory. In: Town Planning Review 63, 2, 143–162. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.63.2.422x602303814821 Hesse, M.; Kühn, M. (2023): Planungskonflikte in der pluralistischen Demokratie. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning 81, 5, 422–436. https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.1710 Hillier, J. (2000): Going round the Back? Complex Networks and Informal Action in Local Planning Processes. In: Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 32, 1, 33–54. https://doi.org/10.1068/a321 Hillier, J. (2003): ‚Agon’izing Over Consensus: Why Habermasian Ideals cannot be ‚Real‘‘. In: Planning Theory 2, 1, 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095203002001005 Hofer, K.; Kaufmann, D. (2023): Actors, arenas and aims: A conceptual framework for public participation. In: Planning Theory 22, 4, 357–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/14730952221139587 Kenis, A. (2019): Post-politics contested: Why multiple voices on climate change do not equal politicisation. In: Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 37, 5, 831–848. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X18807209 Kettner, L.-L.; Hatesohl, G. (2024): Gemeinwohlorientierte Koproduktion im Quartier. Bausteine für die Raumplanung? Einblicke in eine partizipative Gemeinwohldefinition in Münster. In: RaumPlanung 225, 1, 45–51. Klaever, A.; Verlinghieri, E. (2025): Who is (not) in the room? An epistemic justice perspective on low-carbon transport transitions. In: Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 27, 2, 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2024.2422842 Kling, N. (2023): Linking Situational Analysis to Architecture and Urbanism. An Interdisciplinary Perspective. In: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung Forum: Qualitative Social Research 24, 2. https://doi.org/10.17169/FQS-24.2.4084 Kühn, M. (2021): Agonistic planning theory revisited: The planner’s role in dealing with conflict. In: Planning Theory 20, 2, 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095220953201 Kühn, M.; Sommer, C. (2023): Konflikte und Partizipation in der Planung: Ein Forschungsansatz. Erkner. = IRS Dialog 2/2023. Latour, B. (2007): Reassembling the social. An introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford. Lefebvre, H. (2016): Das Recht auf Stadt. Hamburg. Legacy, C. (2017): Is there a crisis of participatory planning? In: Planning Theory 16, 4, 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095216667433 Legacy, C.; Cook, N.; Rogers, D.; Ruming, K. (2018): Planning the post-political city: exploring public participation in the contemporary Australian city. In: Geographical Research 56, 2, 176–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12285 Marchart, O. (2010): Die politische Differenz. Zum Denken des Politischen bei Nancy, Lefort, Badiou, Laclau und Agamben. Berlin. McAdam, D.; Tarrow, S.; Tilly, C. (2004): Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge. McAuliffe, C.; Rogers, D. (2018): Tracing resident antagonisms in urban development: agonistic pluralism and participatory planning. In: Geographical Research 56, 2, 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12283 McClymont, K. (2019): Articulating virtue: Planning ethics within and beyond post politics. In: Planning Theory 18, 3, 282–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095218773119 Metzger, J. (2018): Postpolitics and Planning. In: Gunder, M.; Madanipour, A.; Watson, V. (Hrsg.): The Routledge Handbook of Planning Theory. New York, 180–193. Mössner, S. (2016): Sustainable Urban Development as Consensual Practice: Post-Politics in Freiburg, Germany. In: Regional Studies 50, 6, 971–982. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2015.1102875 Mouffe, C. (2007): Über das Politische. Wider die kosmopolitische Illusion. Frankfurt am Main. Müller, S.; Buchecker, M. (2025): More than deliberation is needed: Potential for agonistic moments in community wind energy planning. In: Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 43, 4, 655–678. https://doi.org/10.1177/23996544241278855 Mullis, D.; Schipper, S. (2013): Die postdemokratische Stadt zwischen Politisierung und Kontinuität. Oder ist die Stadt jemals demokratisch gewesen? In: suburban. zeitschrift für kritische stadtforschung 1, 2, 79–100. https://doi.org/10.36900/suburban.v1i2.97 Pløger, J. (2018): Conflict and Agonism. In: Gunder, M.; Madanipour, A.; Watson, V. (Hrsg.): The Routledge Handbook of Planning Theory. New York, 264–275. Pløger, J. (2021): Conflict, consent, dissensus: The unfinished as challenge to politics and planning. In: Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 39, 6, 1294–1309. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654420985849 Pløger, J. (2023): Agonism, decision, power – The art of working unfinished. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning 81, 5, 449–460. https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.1668 Purcell, M. (2009): Resisting Neoliberalization: Communicative Planning or Counter-Hegemonic Movements? In: Planning Theory 8, 2, 140–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095209102232 Raco, M. (2014): The Post-Politics of Sustainability Planning: Privatisation and the Demise of Democratic Government. In: Wilson, J.; Swyngedouw, E. (Hrsg.): The Post-Political and Its Discontents. Spaces of Depoliticisation, Spectres of Radical Politics. Edinburgh, 25–47. Räuchle, C.; Stelzer, F.; Zimmer-Hegmann, R. (2021): Urbane Reallabore im Kontext von transdisziplinärer Stadtforschung und Planungswissenschaft. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning 79, 4, 287–290. https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.139 Rancière, J. (2002): Das Unvernehmen. Politik und Philosophie. Frankfurt am Main. Rancière, J. (2014): Demokratie und Postdemokratie. In: Riha, R. (Hrsg.): Politik der Wahrheit. Wien, 119–156. Rosemann, T. (2013): Planning in the Face of Democracy. Mit Jacques Rancière über Raumplanung und Demokratie nachdenken. In: suburban. zeitschrift für kritische stadtforschung 1, 2, 41–60. https://doi.org/10.36900/suburban.v1i2.95 Roth, R. (2015): Intermediäre Akteure in einer „vielfältigen Demokratie“. In: Forum Wohnen und Stadtentwicklung 5, 226–230. Ruming, K. (2018): Post-political planning and community opposition: asserting and challenging consensus in planning urban regeneration in Newcastle, New South Wales. In: Geographical Research 56, 2, 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12269 Saleh, M.; Rauws, W. (2022): The urban political never sleeps: A framework for tracing emergent counter-responses to depoliticisation. In: Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 40, 6, 1272–1289. https://doi.org/10.1177/23996544211070200 Schad-Spindler, A.; Fridrik, S.; Landau-Donnelly, F. (2023): Conflictual Consensus in Austrian Cultural Politics: Urban Cultural Policy Research at the Intersection of Agonism and Situational Analysis. In: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung Forum: Qualitative Social Research 24, 2. https://doi.org/10.17169/FQS-24.2.4068 Selle, K. (1997): Planung und Kommunikation. Anmerkungen zur Renaissance eines alten Themas. In: disP – The Planning Review 33, 129, 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.1997.10556645 Sinning, H. (2018): Beteiligung. In: ARL – Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung (Hrsg.): Handwörterbuch der Stadt- und Raumentwicklung. Hannover, 207–219. Sommer, C. (2024): Wenn Gemeinwohlbelange konkurrieren. Konflikte um das Pergolenviertel in Hamburg. In: RaumPlanung 225, 1, 21–26. Stadt Münster (2019a): Integriertes Stadtentwicklungskonzept Münster 2030. Baustein C: Zehn Leitthemen für Münster. Münster. Stadt Münster (2019b): Planungswerkstatt 2030. Dokumentation des Prozesses zur Erarbeitung des Wohnsiedlungsflächenkonzepts 2030. Münster. Stadt Münster (2022): Leitorientierungen für eine Gute Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung. https://www.muensterzukunft.de/_Resources/Persistent/0/6/9/6/0696296735cb5e798d53d4f5424b49d5c532da84/Leitorientierungen_Muenster.pdf (18.12.2024). Stadt Münster (2023): Werkstattverfahren. Modellquartiere am Kinderbachbogen. Steinfurter Straße | Busso-Peus-Straße. Dokumentation (Kurzfassung). Münster. Swyngedouw, E. (2009): The Antinomies of the Postpolitical City: In Search of a Democratic Politics of Environmental Production. In: International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 33, 3, 601–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2009.00859.x Swyngedouw, E. (2013): Die postpolitische Stadt. In: suburban. zeitschrift für kritische stadtforschung 1, 2, 141–158. https://doi.org/10.36900/suburban.v1i2.100 van Wymeersch, E.; Vanoutrive, T.; Oosterlynck, S. (2020): Unravelling the Concept of Social Transformation in Planning: Inclusion, Power Changes, and Political Subjectification in the Oosterweel Link Road Conflict. In: Planning Theory and Practice 21, 2, 200–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2020.1752787 Wieczorek, F.; Freier, A. N.; Oppold, D. (2024): Bürgerräte in Deutschland. Entwicklung und Vielfalt losbasierter Beteiligung. Berlin. Zimmermann, K. (2019): Kommunikative Planung. In: Wiechmann, T. (Hrsg.): ARL Reader Planungstheorie. Band 1: Kommunikative Planung – Neoinstitutionalismus und Governance. Berlin, 13–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-57630-4_2. Downloads PDF (German) HTML (German) XML (German) Published Issue publication date 2025-10-30 (version 2)Published online first 2025-09-25 (version 1) Versions 2025-10-30 (2) 2025-09-25 (1) Issue Vol. 83 No. 5 (2025) Section Research Article License Copyright (c) 2025 Jana Weber This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Articles in Raumforschung und Raumordnung – Spatial Research and Planning are published under a Creative Commons license. From Vol. 79 No. 2 (2021), the license applied is CC BY 4.0. From Vol. 77 No. 1 to Vol. 79 No.1, articles were published under a CC BY-SA license. Earlier volumes have been re-published by oekom 2022 under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License CC BY 4.0. How to Cite 1.Weber J. Münster’s Participation Landscape in the Lens of Situational Analysis: Political Arenas of Negotiation in transformative Urban Development Policy. RuR [Internet]. 2025 Oct. 30 [cited 2025 Dec. 16];83(5):381-94. Available from: https://rur.oekom.de/index.php/rur/article/view/3105 More Citation Formats ACM ACS APA ABNT Chicago Harvard IEEE MLA Turabian Vancouver Download Citation Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX Share
Call for papers for a special issue on the topic Persistent inequalities? Looking towards and beyond the continuing East-West divides in German society in the journal Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning (RuR) November 17, 2025 Call for papers for a special issue on the topic Persistent inequalities? Looking towards and beyond the continuing East-West divides in German society in the journal Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning (RuR)
A new Issue has been published October 30, 2025 A new issue of the Open-Access-Journal "Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning" has been published. Volume 83 No. 5 (2025) is now available on our website.
Call for Papers for a Special Issue on Spaces of transformation: energy transition, social innovations and cultural perspectives in the Journal Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning (RuR) September 2, 2025 Call for Papers for a Special Issue on Spaces of transformation: energy transition, social innovations and cultural perspectives in the Journal Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning (RuR)