{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017772511848341232, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004739336492890996, 'mean_word_length': 5.5, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Quantitative and Research Methods in Planning: Are Schools Teaching What Practitioners Practice?

This paper offers a framework for reexamining the set of skills and techniques included in the quantitative and research methods curricula of American graduate planning programs. These offerings, viewed as the supply of skills, are compared to the demand—skills and techniques used by U.S. planning practitioners. The analysis explores the match between supply, current demand, and skills and techniques practitioners claim they intend to use in the future. Results of the analysis are linked with 1986 work by Contant and Forkenbrock. The quantitative curricular offerings of planning programs are found to be relatively unresponsive to current and future practitioner demand for skills. Directions for possible curriculum changes are suggested.