Rethinking Rural Development: Analyzing Paradigmatic Intersections in Iran's Spatial Planning Projects

Journal of Research and Rural Planning

دوره 13، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 47، اردیبهشت 2025، صفحه 19-38   

نوع مقاله: Original Article

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22067/jrrp.v13i4.2410-1111

نویسندگان

Ali Mokhtari Karchegani¹؛ Mortaza Tavakoli^{* 2}؛ Mahdi Pourtaheri²؛ Francisco Antonio Navarro Valverde³

¹Tarbiat Madras University, Tehran, Iran.

²Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

³Granada University, Granada, Spain.

چکیده

Purpose- The ongoing research endeavors to identify and critically analyze the paradigmatic rural development model embedded within Iran's spatial planning frameworks. As innovative philosophical perspectives in rural development emerge, the necessity of examining and understanding the foundational principles guiding these initiatives has become increasingly vital. This importance is recognized from a theoretical perspective and in practical efficiency and effectiveness, particularly relevant for geographers engaged in spatial analysis.
Design/methodology/approach- The research aims to contribute valuable insights to enhance rural development strategies and inform effective spatial planning in Iran by exploring these dimensions. The research strategy uses a mixed-methods approach, allowing for the selection of various methods that are aligned with the overall research objectives. Initially, the qualitative content analysis method was employed. Data collection utilized several tools, including observation, document analysis, and questionnaires. A non-probability sampling technique was applied, and one document was selected from each of the nine study areas. Researchers needed to consider multiple criteria during judgmental sampling, such as clustering levels, time units, geographic units, and the number of document samples, alongside consultations with academic experts. The document analysis, grounded in qualitative content analysis, aimed to objectify findings.
Findings- The research revealed that critical characteristics of the paradigmatic model for rural development in the provincial SSP include "objective ontology," "positivism epistemology," "Separate praxis," and "ethics." The findings indicate that the degree of alignment between the selected SPP and the paradigmatic model of retrogressive rural development is rated at 3.73. This score suggests that the retrogressive perspective remains dominant despite advancements in "ideological" and "institutional" reforms.
Originality/value- Consequently, the characteristics associated with the paradigmatic elements of rural development have regressed within the SPP framework.

کلیدواژه‌ها

The dominant paradigm model؛ rural development؛ plans for improving Iran's territory؛ regressive development؛ nine regions

مراجع

1. Ahmadi Shapourabadi, M., & Mottaghi, S. L. (2022). Pathology and Monitoring of Rural Development Policies in Development Plans: Lessons for Developing Rural Development Executive Policies in the Seventh Development Plan [Review Article]. Management and Development Process, 35(3), 129-164. https://doi.org/10.52547/jmdp.35.3.129
2. Amani, M., Azizpour, F., Tahmasebi, a., Afrakhteh, H., & Darabi, H. (2020). An Investigation of the Rural Development Policies of Sixth Five-Year Social, Cultural and Economic Development Plan in Iran. Journal of Rural Research, 11(1), 22-35. [In Persian] https://doi.org/10.22059/jrur.2019.285969.1384
3. Ambrosio-Albalá, M., & Bastiaensen, J. (2010). The new territorial paradigm of rural development: Theoretical foundations from systems and institutional theories. https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:iob:dpaper:2010002
4. Azkia, M., & Dibaji Forooshnai, S. (2016). Criticism The Rural Development Plans in Iran. Quarterly of Social Studies and Research in Iran, 5(1), 103-125. [In Persian] https://doi.org/10.22059/jisr.2016.58378
5. Badri, S. A., Rezvani, M., & Khodadadi, P. (2019). Analyzing the Qualitative Content of Spatial Policies of Rural Development in Iran’s Post Islamic Revolution. Spatial Planning, 9(1), 1-24. [In Persian] https://doi.org/10.22108/sppl.2019.113288.1295
6. Behzadnasab, J. (2000). review of the perspectives and approaches of rural development planning in Iran's medium-term development plans. Geographical Sciences Applied Research Quarterly, 2, 85. [In Persian]https://www.magiran.com/paper/991985/
7. Berisha, E., Cotella, G., Janin Rivolin, U., & Solly, A. (2021). Spatial governance and planning systems in the public control of spatial development: a European typology. European Planning Studies, 29(1), 181-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1726295
8. Bresler, L. (2006). Embodied narrative inquiry: A methodology of connection. Research studies in music education, 27(1), 21-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X060270010201
9. Bruckmeier, K., & Tovey, H. (2008). Knowledge in sustainable rural development: From forms of knowledge to knowledge processes. Sociologia Ruralis, 48(3), 313-329. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00466.x
10. Burgos, A. L., & Bocco, G. (2020). Contribuciones a una teoría de la innovación rural. Cuadernos de Economía, 39(79), 219-247. https://doi.org/10.15446/cuad.econ.v39n79.74459
11. Cei, L., Defrancesco, E., & Stefani, G. (2018). From geographical indications to rural development: A review of the economic effects of European Union policy. Sustainability, 10(10), 3745. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103745
12. Cejudo, E., & Navarro, F. (2020). Neoendogenous development in European rural areas. Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33463-5
13. David, B. (2015). What is ethics in research & why is it important?. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis
14. Douglass, M. (2006). On the Epistemology of Rural Regional Development Models: From Developmental State to Neoliberal Ideologies in Pacific Asia. In: SeoulNationalUniversity. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278158745
15. Douglass, M. (2018). A regional network strategy for reciprocal rural–urban linkages: an agenda for policy research with reference to Indonesia. In The Earthscan Reader in Rural–Urban Linkages (pp. 124-154). Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315800486-7
16. Dower, M. (2013). Rural development in the New Paradigm. The new paradigm in action–on successful partnerships, 30-50. https://www.hutton.ac.uk/sites/default/files/files/andrew's%20article-%20warsaw.pdf
17. Ellison, E. R., & Langhout, R. D. (2020). Embodied relational praxis in intersectional organizing: Developing intersectional solidarity. Journal of Social Issues, 76(4), 949-970. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/josi.12402
18. Esparcia, J. (2014). Innovation and networks in rural areas. An analysis from European innovative projects. Journal of rural studies, 34, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.12.004
19. Finlay, L. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative research, 2(2), 209-230. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/146879410200200205
20. Forester, J. (2015). What kind of research might help us become better planners? In (Vol. 16, pp. 145-148): Taylor & Francis. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2015.1028711
21. Freire, P. (1972). Education: domestication or liberation?. Prospects, 2(2), 173-181. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/30023905
22. Ghaderi, M. R., Taghvaei, M., & Shafaghi, S. (2017). An analysis of management of regional development in Iran. International Review(1-2), 36-44. [In Persian] http://dx.doi.org/10.5937/intrev1702036G
23. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA, Sage. https://search.worldcat.org/title/Fourth-generation-evaluation/oclc/19981169
24. Guinjoan, E., Badia, A., & Tulla, A. F. (2016). The new paradigm of rural development. Theoretical considerations and reconceptualization using the rural web. Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles, 71, 495-500. http://dx.doi.org/10.21138/bage.2279
25. Harvey, D. (2006). Space as a keyword. na. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470773581.ch14

 

26. Healy, K. (2004). Towards an Andean rural development paradigm? NACLA Report on the Americas, 38(3), 28-33. https://nacla.org/article/towards-andean-rural-development-paradigm
27. Hesse-Biber, S. N., Howling, S. A., Leavy, P., & Lovejoy, M. (2004). Racial identity and the development of body image issues among African American adolescent girls. The Qualitative Report, 9(1), 49-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2004.1937
28. Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res, 15(9), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
29. Karchegani, A. M., Tavakoli, M., & Ahmadipour, Z. (2020). Comparison of Epistemological System's with Methodological Benchmarks in Spatial Planning. [In Persian] doi: 10.22111/gdij.2020.5470
30. Kay, C. (1998). Relevance of structuralist and dependency theories in the neoliberal period: a Latin American perspective. ISS Working Paper Series/General Series, 281, 1-30. https://repub.eur.nl/pub/19025/wp281.pdf
31. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://www.lri.fr/~mbl/Stanford/CS477/papers/Kuhn-SSR-2ndEd.pdf
32. Lang, T., Burneika, D., Noorkõiv, R., Plüschke-Altof, B., Pociūtė-Sereikienė, G., & Sechi, G. (2022). Socio-spatial polarisation and policy response: Perspectives for regional development in the Baltic States. European Urban and Regional Studies, 29(1), 21-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/09697764211023553
33. Leavy, p (2014). The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research. Oxford university press. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/38166
34. Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, 289-331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8
35. Lowe, P. (2010). Enacting rural sociology: or what are the creativity claims of the engaged sciences? Sociologia Ruralis, 50(4), 311-330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2010.00522.x
36. Marsden, T., Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Munton, R. C., & Flynn, A. (2005). Constructuring the countryside: An approach to rural development. Routledge. http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/47930/1/120.pdf
37. Mattner, H. F. (2006). Epistemic learning and rural development: an autoethnography of systemic participation with peasants, self and society. http://handle.uws.edu.au:8081/1959.7/14277
38. Mokhtari Karchegani, A., Tavakoli, M., & Ahmadipour, Z. (2020). Comparison of Epistemological system's with Methodological Benchmarks in Spatial Planning. Geography and Development, 18(59), 185-210. doi: 10.22111/gdij.2020.5470. https://doi.org/10.22111/gdij.2020.5470
39. Mokhtari Karchegani, A., Tavakoli, M., & Ahmadipour, Z. (2020). Epistemological analysis of spatial planning plan in Iran's. The Journal of Spatial Planning and Geomatics, 24(3), 27-63. [In Persian] http://hsmsp.modares.ac.ir/article-21-36446-en.html
40. Mokhtari Karchegani, A., Tavakoli, M., & Portahari, M. (2024). The new paradigm of Neo_Endogenous rural development: a thematic analysis. Journal of Rural Research. [In Persian] https://doi.org/10.22059/jrur.2024.367453.1880
41. Momani, Farshad (2024), The Political Economy Governing Land Planning in Iran, Quarterly Journal of Economics and Society, No. 16 (2), 143-165. [in Persian] https://www.magiran.com/paper/2675797
42. momeni, f. (2019). The Journal of Spatial Planning and Geomatics, 23(0), 1-15. [In Persian] http://hsmsp.modares.ac.ir/article-21-39637-fa.html
43. Murdoch, J. (2000). Networks—a new paradigm of rural development? Journal of rural studies, 16(4), 407-419. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(00)00022-X
44. Murdoch, J. (2003). Co-constructing the countryside: hybrid networks and the extensive self. Country visions, 263-282. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848608016.n12
45. Nelson, G. L. (1984). Elements of a Paradigm for Rural Development. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(5), 694-700. https://doi.org/10.2307/1240980
46. Nowak, M., Petrisor, A.-I., Mitrea, A., Kovács, K. F., Lukstina, G., Jürgenson, E., Ladzianska, Z., Simeonova, V., Lozynskyy, R., & Rezac, V. (2022). The role of spatial plans adopted at the local level in the spatial planning systems of central and eastern European countries. Land, 11(9), 1599. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/9/1599#
47. Olmedo, L., & O’Shaughnessy, M. (2022). A Substantive View of Social Enterprises as Neo-endogenous Rural Development Actors. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-021-00442-7
48. Olsen, W. K. (2008). Realist ontology and epistemology for rural research. Brooks World Poverty Institute Working Paper(53). https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1297186
49. Peterson, H. L., McBeth, M. K., & Jones, M. D. (2020). Policy Process Theory for Rural Studies: Navigating Context and Generalization in Rural Policy. Politics & Policy, 48(4), 576-617. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/polp.12366
50. Rasoolimanesh, M., Jaafar, M., & Badarulzaman, N. (2013). Urban planning and management system in iran: A review and assessment. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 18(2), 220-229. http://dx.doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2013.18.2.12435
51. Ray, C. (2006). Neo-endogenous rural development in the EU. Handbook of rural studies, 1, 278-291. [In Persian] http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315102375-17
52. Roknuddin Eftekhari, A. R. a. J. B. B., Janali. (2004). Communicative planning, a critical approach to planning theory (with an emphasis on rural development planning). Modares Humanities Quarterly,, 1, 1. [In Persian] https://ensani.ir/file/download/article/20120413144526-2172-304.pdf
53. Scott, M., Gallent, N., & Gkartzios, M. (2019). New horizons in rural planning. In The Routledge companion to rural planning (pp. 1-12). Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315102375-1
54. D. & Usher, R. (2004). Researching education: Data, methods, and theory in educational enquiry. New York: Continuum. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500790.2011.577963
55. Shortall, S. (2008). Are rural development programmes socially inclusive? Social inclusion, civic engagement, participation, and social capital: Exploring the differences. Journal of rural studies, 24(4), 450-457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.01.001
56. Sol, K., & Heng, K. (2022). Understanding epistemology and its key approaches in research. Cambodian Journal of Educational Research, 2(2), 80-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.62037/cjer.2022.02.02.05
57. Stead, D. (2012). Best Practices and Policy Transfer in Spatial Planning. Planning Practice & Research, 27(1), 103-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2011.644084
58. Taleb, M. (2018). Rural Management in Iran. Tehran University Press. [In Persian] https://press.ut.ac.ir/book_291.html
59. Torabi, Z. A., Hall, C. M., Aallam, Z., & Mokktari Karchegani, A. (2023). Power and rent-seeking in the second homes tourism market: evidence from selected villages in Iran. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/19407963.2023.2282526
60. Vaswani, L., Aithal, R., Pradhan, D., & Sridhar, G. (2005). Rural marketing in the development paradigm. International Journal of Rural Management, 1(2), 245-262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/097306800500100206
61. Vercher, N., Bosworth, G., & Esparcia, J. (2023). Developing a framework for radical and incremental social innovation in rural areas. Journal of rural studies, 99, 233-242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.01.007
62. White, J. (2007, December). Knowing, doing and being in context: A praxis-oriented approach to child and youth care. In Child & Youth Care Forum(Vol. 36, pp. 225-244). Springer US. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10566-007-9043-1
63. Yang, C., & Qian, Z. (2023). China’s Integrated Urban–Rural Development: A Development Mode Outside the Planetary Urbanization Paradigm? In The City in an Era of Cascading Risks: New Insights from the Ground (pp. 169-193). Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2050-1_10
64. Zahedi, M. j., Ghaffari, G., & Ebrahimilouye, A. (2013). Theoretical Deficiencies of Rural Development in Iran. Journal of Rural Research, 3(12), 7-30. [In Persian] https://doi.org/10.22059/jrur.2013.30230