Statement issued by Faranak Miraftab

Pushing the reflective envelop of scholarship
on issues of concern to “global planning educators.”

On Thursday, November 9, 2006, GPEIG held a lunch and a short business meeting, followed by a substantive brainstorming/discussion session, moderated by Faranak, of ways GPEIG can take a more active role in pushing the reflective envelop of scholarship on issues of concern to “global planning educators.”

Below is the text that Faranak circulated on the globalplan list to stimulate critical thinking in advance of the Nov. 9, 2006 meeting. Beneath her text appears comments, arranged in chronological order, that others shared in response.

Opening Challenge by Faranak Miraftab, October 1, 2006

I feel the need for GPEIG to take an active role in pushing the reflective envelop of the group’s scholarship.  By that I mean do we want to keep sending in abstracts individually and get grouped around the same tired themes of informal housing, squatters, informal economy, urbanization in third world etc. or shall we think about what are the critical questions that GPEIG membership, globally minded academic and educators should ask?

How can we make ACSP an intellectual space to pause and reflect on what we are doing and whether we want to continue doing what we have been doing?  Does it make sense to see and do things differently in the context of the new century, the post cold war, the neoliberal global era..... ? If so, how?  What are the emerging questions, burning questions that we need to deal with in whatever aspect of our globally minded scholarship we are involved in?  For example, is international at all the container that can hold our thoughts, or is it a post WW II concept that needs to be departed from?  What is/are the alternative framework(s) that can best do so?  The aim of this discussion could be to rethink the field in terms of its critical/ cutting edge questions, concepts, and towards that goal to promote a dialogue within ACSP.

I had thought the discussion that follows the lunch and the regular business items could involve creating a repertoire of research themes and questions and topics that GPEIG membership could reflect on in their own academic work.  The proposed topics could then be shaped into call for papers to create pre-organized panels around the selected themes that emerge through the substantive discussion.  The CFP should be circulated shortly after this ACSP meeting, to offer close to one year for development of the papers.  The GPEIG members who volunteer to steer the pre-organized panels around the identified themes could also identify publication outlets for the papers.  Some panels might find the goal of publication premature for their topic or stage of research, others might find the papers well-developed and ready for submission/publication.  This is just an idea to provide an incentive to increase the quality of papers coming to GPEIG pre-organized panel.

This is only one suggestion.  I am sure the Thursday after-lunch session will generate other suggestions.  They could be circulated by email like this, or raised verbally at the meeting then. This is only one of many proposals I could think of being put forth for discussion.

From: Michael Leaf
Subject: Re: GPEIG at ACSP
October 1, 2006

Hello Everyone,

First, many thanks to Sid, Mike and Faranak for taking the initiative in organizing this substantive discussion session, as I think many of us are looking forward to this.  The intent here, it seems, is to open up the idea of articulating a 21st century agenda for GPEIG, in particular one that will promote dialogue within ACSP generally, and by implication help to de-marginalize (or mainstream?) the interests of GPEIG within the organization over all.  I can’t resist putting a few thoughts down in advance, possibly to get discussion going before we convene in Fort Worth.

For one thing, it is worth considering how this discussion is being framed at the outset - I doubt that we will find any ardent defenders of “the same tired themes.” If this is the case, it occurs to me that there are at least four hypotheses as to why this is:
1.  the fundamental issues of the “old agenda” have been resolved and it is time to move on (would that this were!).
2.  the world has been changing in fundamental ways and new, more critical, issues have emerged that require us to think about a new agenda.
3.  the world has not changed so fundamentally, but we have a better understanding of the insufficiencies of past analytical frameworks we have brought to bear in interpreting it - in other words, what is the critical issue for framing our discourse, what is happening on the ground, or our own theoretical constructs (though certainly one can point out iterative relationships here)?
4.  and related to the previous point is what might be considered the “career development” issue - that is, that it is in the nature of academia (and academic advancement) that we must always be seen to be innovating.  I mean this less as a cynical interpretation of academic life than an honest reflection on our positions as “creators of knowledge.” The caveat here, though, is that we should be cognizant that our urge to innovate does not lead us to overlook or too easily dismiss past critical insights.

Certainly these four points are not mutually exclusive (and others may have more to add).  My purpose in trying to separate these out is to help us think about how the emergent GPEIG agenda might connect with the mainstream (i.e. North American) agenda(s) of ACSP (or even whether this is practicable), as presumably the same sorts of issues of continuity and change apply in other “sub-fields” within planning.

In short, will we be discussing new bottles for old wines, fundamentally new vintages (with perhaps even new grapes), or the latest cutting edge developments in the field of oenology, for better or worse?
best, Michael

From: susan sullivan
Subject: Re: GPEIG at ACSP
October 3, 2006

The funny thing about the same tired themes, is that not only haven’t they gone away, but if we have understand the issues with any depth, the insights found there, inform the issues here, particularly in light of the current debate on immigration in the U.S.  The informalization of the U.S. economy, particularly in the border areas is a current issue, and one benefit of a global perspective is that lessons from another place enlighten us here. 

One of the reversals in insight, perhaps, is not how do we get more for developing places, but how do we learn to live with less, as many already do. Susan Sullivan

From:
Subject: pre-Texas GPEIG dialogue
October 28, 2006

Dear GPEIGers,

I am looking forward to meeting again in just two weeks in Texas.  I especially look forward to the special meeting that Faranak and Mike have organized for us to discuss more substantive issues such as the future direction of GPEIG panels a t ACSP conferences.  Even so, the time will be very limited.  If we could have some advance discussions over email in the next week or so, we could get a better sense of where the interests of this interest group lie, which I think would help Faranak and Mike plan the meeting effectively.

I appreciated Michael Leaf?s provocative email ? the most memorable part for me was, aren?t the panel topics a bit dated now?  I know I usually have trouble fitting myself in the traditional sub-topics.  Meanwhile, there have been exciting roundtables around emerging topics that have allowed us to
exchange work in progress and to pursue ideas together.  For example, I participated in a WPSC roundtable organized by Teresa Vasquez on comparative land expropriation and its ethical implications that brought together scholars that had not dialogued with each other before and was really helpful to my writing.  There have been other research directions proposed in places such as the GPEIG newsletters and the upcoming special issue of JPER on progressive regionalism and the global technology infrastructure grid.

What are some other directions?  And what do these shifts taken together mean for the future discourse of international planners?  I would suggest that while we have an ethos to be as inclusive as possible, GPEIG?s new directions will be determined by whether there are people willing to help organize meetings or other spaces for discourse around them.  If you have ideas for current or new emerging topics and fields that are not yet well identified in the ACSP international track, it would be great if you sent us a brief email describing it.  Then when we all meet in two weeks, interested parties could find each other.  Also, it would give us all a better sense as to what questions are on our minds collectively.

So, using myself as an example, I would be interested in talking with people about:

1) comparative land takings for economic development:  this has been a classic issue in planning theory but there is an upsurge currently spreading in the developing world.  How are these different from the past and how do they contribute to planning theories?

2) the new landscape of international development:  I?d be curious to have further discussion about the new paradigm of international development planning as a field.  Compared to the 1980s, when criticisms of liberalization policies of institutions like the IMF and World Bank dominated the discourse, these institutions? role relative to private capital, local governments, and social movements has declined so much that they are trying to redefine themselves. With globalization and social movements, is the divide between first and third worlds dissipating?

I look forward to seeing you all in Texas,
Annette M. Kim