Written summary of the Nov. 9, 2006 brainstorming session

Summary of the Nov. 9, 2006 GPEIG meeting in Ft. Worth, Texas
With comments by GPEIG members

From: Faranak Miraftab
Subject: Notes from Fort Worth discussion and beyond
November 15, 3006

Dear Gpeig-ers:
Attached [see “GPEIG Brainstorm Session” text below] please find a summary of the discussion at the brainstorming session at ACSP Fort Worth.  It reports on what was said, based on the notes that Annette Kim (incoming co-chair elect) and I took at the meeting.  If we have missed or misunderstood anyone’s input we take full responsibility and please correct the note via further email discussion.  We hope this would be helpful to continue the discussion over the email both by helping those who missed the meeting and also those who did not get a chance to talk or have points of concern that they want to share in retrospect. We (Michael H, Annette and I) would particularly appreciate membership’s feedback on the plan of action?  Any new suggestions?  Any reaction to the existing ones?  It is wonderful that already several suggestions for further discussion are coming in.  I think both Michael L. and Sukamar are proposing important themes to be seriously engaged in at the next conference as pre-organized panels.

Here I want to take the liberty of adding my own personal feedback and raise two points of caution.  Firstly, a concern with understanding the different realities and possibilities of big school/ small schools.  E.g., studios might not be offered in schools with limited resources and hence the poster presentation sessions need to be broader than studio projects. To make sure that this debate does not become an exclusive turf of big schools with resourceful specialized international planning faculty and course offerings, the poster presentations need to be broader than studio projects and include any kind of planning intervention whether through studio, consultancy, or other means that I have not thought of.

Secondly, to address this problem there was some suggestions to mobilize funds so we can distribute across schools and be more inclusive.  I agree that would be very helpful and necessary.  But I am also weary of too quickly trying to move towards fund raising for joint studio projects across north-south or north-north schools.  I would think that we need way more dialogue on how we define and redefine our somewhat ambiguous field of international development planning, before bringing the issue of funding into the picture.  Funding often presents a contentious issue that rather than bringing together can cause frictions.  I hear Bish on the need for funding to mobilize collective joint projects but I think it might be pre-mature at this point and risk killing the dialogue or de-railing the energy.  We could however, share useful strategies that various schools use to fund international endeavors.  e.g., charging US students an extra amount that could contribute towards the return visit by students in the counterpart school (the concern raised in the meeting with making a two way exchanges).  With these two personal points of concern I hope you all find the attached notes useful.  Annette should be thanked for the improved quality and clarity of the notes.
Faranak
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GPEIG Brainstorm Session
At ACSP conference in Fort Worth, Texas
November 9, 2006 PART 1: an open discussion
The discussion was kick started by re-stating the need for a substantive discussion within Gpeig on how we understand our role and responsibilities as faculty involved in international development planning and how we should reflect and perhaps re-define the questions, the field and the approaches we take. It is not that the problems of informal settlements, squatters and urbanization are passé and no need to be studied, but that if these problems persist, as we have witnessed they do, then perhaps we need to reflect on the frameworks we use to study these stubborn problems across time and space. Gpeig could be utilized better as a space to reflect critically on what we do and how we do it. But, we need people to step up with initiative and leadership. (Faranak, Michael, and Annette)
Ghettoization of international content is one of our challenges (Laura)
We need to stress transparency, ethics of international planning, not working with oppressive governments, speaking to displacement, what can we do collectively as a group to promote international planning ethics; e.g., doing a serious evaluation and critique of the Millennium Development Goals and the absence of planning. Our ethical standards do not transfer well to other contexts. (Peter)
We need to take action as a collective voice, not as individual faculty with interest in international development. (Bish)
Use task force as a way of organizing our collective efforts. As an organizing principle, e.g., a taskforce that works around Millennium Development Goals. Also how can we intervene as independent group of faculty as opposed to individuals dependent on World Bank consultancy. Discuss the institutional barriers to development. ( Petra)
To form a collective voice and force, we need to use other organizations such as GPEAN. We need to offer and benefit from collective wisdom through GPEAN for example on experiences and challenges and experiences that cities around the world are dealing with and a lot of it might be shared challenges that these cities can benefit from through a collective body. We can help cities negotiate better with external investors more effectively. (Bish)
Including comparative perspective in the MDG is hard (Smita)
Lets not dismantle international too quickly. Comparative must include the US. Agendas themes to contribute to the World Congress that takes place every five years. Setting up comparative studies that would work towards the world meeting after 5 years. These efforts can be organized around two issues (1) joint courses between countries, like what was done at WPSC in Mexico City with ASU, UIUC and UNAM; and (2) pre-organized thematic panels. (Hema)
An important problem with the international development planning as it is practiced and taught is the absence of time and space, meaning a lack of historical and a relational comparative understanding of the problems. A perspective that tries to understand the problem merely here and now. If we brought sufficiently these two dimensions into study of international development planning, an important aspect of ethics and politics of international planning is captured. Therefore, the comparative studies that stress relationship between shared development planning experiences, what can be better termed as transnational planning, and historical analysis that historicizes the so called development problems are key to an emphasis on ethics and politics of development planning. (Faranak)
Instead of each university doing studio, how about joint effort by several universities brining students from several universities and doing a project oversees with them and emphasize ethics. But if we decide to go this route, funding is a challenge. We are not using GPEAN enough. Their publication for example Dialogue is great but it only includes voices of few individual researchers. Could it be used as a way of having a greater global reach to planning schools? Also to address the problem of smaller schools that might not have international development faculty or courses, can we serve as a collective resource so every year 2 or 3 people volunteer to go to smaller schools and offer intensive course or workshops on international development. (Bish)
Asking ACSP to give us a space for presentation of international projects kind of poster sessions, and these presentations will deal with particular theme of ethical challenges in international projects of various sorts. This could become the basis of the proposal to have a special GPEIG theme, sessions, etc. to push the intellectual agenda with our position on ethics (Peter)
Perhaps the outcome of these poster presentations and accompanying panel discussions could be published as a paper from GPEIG about the discourse we are trying to influence, the perspective on ethics we are trying to share, publication venue still to be named (Annette).
Exhibition of planning projects could be around two specific themes: (1) what are the ethical issues; and (2) what has worked and what has not. What difficulties and challenges are faced in the process in addition to the ethical ones. Part of the audience for this panel might be faculty and students considering participating in an international studio… so some sense of the range of challenges that are posed in doing this kind of work and the possible solutions to those challenges. We also need a nuts and bolts session on how to make our international exchanges a two way exchange. For example, so that the Third World students also get to come here not only US sending students to them. We could develop a list, a speakers’ bureau. ( Petra).
It is important for PAB recommendations on international global education to stress intersection of race, gender and ethnicity in the context of their agenda of globalizing education. (Betsy)
To make a two way exchange with planning schools outside the US, we can use a program within the Fulbright that is geared for groups and also cyber conferencing. We should think of ways to bring our studio partners to the conference. (Tridib)
We can also use distance-learning and World Bank funding (Ayse).
We could also raise the issue of ethical relations with funders – invite donors to hear our views as well as to present in a session of their own (USAID, UNDP, EDI of WB, UNCHS) We might also propose that they fund an international course award, a course development grant, etc. (Bish)
Apart from ethics perhaps there is need to also focus on policy, information sharing, effective collaboration and teaching. (Sasha)
What happens to international development planning track when the conference is a world congress, meaning all panels in that conference have views from all over the world, all panels can promote comparative perspective (Jo).
Keith’s Grid could be used to share course information to help spread international content (Keith)
Balance between internationalizing ACSP conferences with sessions presented in other tracks and not disbanding the strength of the international development track as happened to the gender track. The international development track has a limited number of sessions it can sponsor so we will need to be strategic about how many will be a part of this GPEIG ethics theme for next year ( Victoria, Keith, Petra).
We need to coordinate how we will make conference goers aware of what we are doing: special logo in the program on all related sessions, a page explaining theme and all sessions, including plenary, etc. (Annette)
Part 2: Action items During the very last 5-10 minutes of the meeting, when we were working under the pressure of eviction order (for the room) the following synthesis plans of action in preparation for the next ACSP emerged. These plans of action (marked by *) were formulated then or shortly after the meeting.
Pre-organized sessions: Already two proposals for pre-organized sessions started to be shaped amongst participants: 1) methods and residential segregation (see Ayse Pamuk and Smita). Also Annette and Peter on overarching ethics issues. In general, need to organize pre-organized panels that focus a transnational/ comparative perspective facilitating a dialogue among researchers with similar interest across geographical boundaries, and facilitating research with a comparative transnational perspective.
*Using PLANET and Gpeig email lists to recruit for such panels already now, so to have a year to build better quality panels and research initiatives
Making the plenary session of the next conference on ethics and politics of planning practice in developing areas.
*Gpeig co-chairs will try to pursue this with memberships’ feedback and suggestions. Faranak already met with Nancy Frank (rep. for next ACSP conf. host institution in Milwakee) and Micki Laurie (ACSP president). Both expressed interest in the proposal and warmly welcomed to receive a proposal on the plenary session. I think we can count on having the plenary. We also did some brainstorming on who the possible good speakers with appeal to the larger membership could be that also could critically address our main objective: to place politics and ethics of international development planning squarely at the center of the attention. Additional suggestions are welcome. Send those to Gpeig co-chairs (Mike, Faranak) and co-chair elects (Annette and Petra).
-Requesting exhibition space in conjuncture with discussion panels on ethics and politics of international development planning. This would include poster sessions that report on a particular project, maybe a studio project, a consultancy project, or a teaching case, or whatever that international development planners engages in as part of their teaching, research and practice; but it has to seriously and critically engage the question of ethics and politics of their activity.
*GPEIG (through its co-chairs) could help to organize this activity for the next ACSP. Gpeig can receive the proposal for poster presentations and creating pre-organized session(s) in conjuncture with poster/ exhibitions.
-Creating a mechanism of sharing teaching material and methods within the US and across the glob with planning schools elsewhere in other countries. E.g., Annette has used video documentary footages from the US and China on land riots that is effective for a global understanding of the problem, this kind of resources can be shared.
*Could Keith’s GRID technology be used for this kind of information and resource sharing across different planning schools around the world and be promoted by GPEAN and its member/affiliate organizations? This could be a very fruitful tool benefiting faculty in member schools of GPEAN across the world (Faranak, post conference reflection).
-Using what is currently used for Gill Dissertation award to promote globally minded course development. E.g., to encourage faculty incorporate comparative perspective in their currently US focused courses, offer a Gill course development grant. This is especially important in response to PAB requirement of globally minded education.
*What is the general sentiment on this? If we get a feedback on usefulness of this shift in focus: from serving the individual faculty and student members of Gpeig to a collective Gpeig, then is this not a better use of Gill award? Is the objective of the award constrained by any means? What is the Gill award committee’s advice on whether this can be done?
-Using Gill award for pre-organized panels with a global comparative or transnational; perspective.
*Same as above. What is the Gpeig’s membership feedback and what is the Gill award’s committee’s feedback on whether it can be done?29) We will discuss how to further implement and delegate these activities over email. This includes ideas for plenary speakers, etc.

From: Peter Marcuse Subject: Re: Notes from Fort Worth discussion and beyond
November 16, 2006

Faranak,

Very helpful notes.

I agree with both your comments in the cover message. Question: Could the Gill awards be specifically targeted to a studio in a school that has not previously done an international studio? But certainly the poster sessions shold be for international activity, not limited to studios. Although, where studios exist, they should be presented, since there is a specific sub-set of ethical issues involved there.
Peter

From: Bish Sanyal
Subject: Re: Notes from Fort Worth discussion and beyond
November 17, 2006

Dear Faranak :
Thank you for organizing the GPEIG meeting and also for writing up the notes which are very useful. I agree with your both concerns regarding big schools/small schools inequity issue, and that we need to be cautious about funding pressures. I think the first concern is more important, however; and I want to draw your attention to the draft report I had prepared for ACSP a few years ago ( as the chair of the committee on curriculums) where we probed this inequity at some length. On fund raising: I agree with your point and feel no hurry to push ourselves to raise funds immediately. Nevertheless, as we all know as planners, resources matter, particularly for creating new, sustainable trends even in the domain of ideas. So, we should keep that concern but perhaps in the back burner for the moment.

Let me take this opportunity to share with you and others a few thoughts I had after our meeting. First, I want to reemphasize the need of cities for good advice on how they should negotiate with prospective investors who often ask to lower labor and environmental standards. I think this is a very important issue; and we should offer our( GPEIG’s) services free to cities which need help. To do so, why don’t we begin to gather case studies of such deals( good and bad) made in the past ; and have a session at the next ACSP on what is our collective understanding on this issue. Recently, Ann Markusen visited MIT and mentioned to me that she has just completed a set of Comparative studies on this topic. I propose that we request her to head the panel; I will of course participate as a member of the panel. I think we need to study such concrete issues to gain some new insights about ethical dilemmas planners confront all the time.
Second thought: I realize that we need to build on the momentum generated at the last ACSP and start thinking about the conference next year. But, if we really want to bring in GPEAN members for a collective demonstration of a global network we may want to do that at Chicago when AESOP and ACSP meet jointly in 2008. In other words why not plan now a set of activities leading towards the next major international event? Regarding how to involve GEPEAN we need to seek Chris and Bruce’s advice since they have served as ACSP representative for GEPEAN. But, if GPEIG is to get more involved with GPEAN we( GPEIG) need to be clear about our role and responsibilities. Personally I think we should involve GPEAN in creating a reservoir of useful case studies on how cities across the world are dealing with private investments. What will it take to seriously engage with the GPEAN partners in jointly conducting research?

Final point: I think if we take Peter’s advice seriously to engage collectively with ethical issues, let’s start creating a reading list on the topic and let Keith store it in “ the grid”. One way to use the reading list would be to have a session at the next ACSP on what and why each of us find some readings more useful than others. Perhaps, Peter can chair that session. As for a Key note speaker on the topic, I suggest William Easterly whose last book is titled : The White Man’s Burden. He also wrote, The Illusive quest for Growth. I think he will generate much interest among the GPEIG members. Thanks again on taking the lead to revamp GPEIG. I hope you will continue to be involved with GPEIG even during your sabbatical. Best, Bish