Exchange between researchers and practitioners in urban planning: achievable objective or a bridge too far?/The use of academic research in planning practice: who, what, where, when and how?/Bridging research and practice through collaboration: lessons from a joint working group/Getting the relationship between researchers and practitioners working/Art and urban planning: stimulating researcher, practitioner and community engagement/Collaboration between researchers and practitioners: Political and bureaucratic issues/Investigating Research/Conclusion: Breaking down barriers through international practice?

The relationship between research and practitioner endeavour is not easy and straightforward – it needs deliberative attention from both researchers and practitioners to thrive. There are a range of barriers in research and practitioner contexts to effective exchange and knowledge transfer. Some are general to broader social policy spheres, and others are more particularly associated with urban planning (Krizek, Forsyth, & Slotterback, 2009 ). Exchange between planning researchers and practitioners is essential to the development of both disciplinary knowledge and professional practice. But how effective and successful can it be? What can or should be achieved and how? Planning practice benefits from new perspectives and a new understanding of problems and potential solutions that flow from rigorous research. However, this should not be conflated with a “linear and utilitarian view of research” (Davoudi, 2006 , p. 14). As with practice benefiting from research knowledge and evidence, research benefits from being informed by practice problems and practical knowledge, leading to broader issues of knowledge production in both spheres.