Present:
Thomas Harper (ACUPP) Johanna Looye (ACSP) Bruce Stiftel (ACSP) Hans Mastop
(AESOP) Alain Motte (APEREAU) Roberto Rodriguez (ALEUP) Heloisa Soares de
Moura (ANPUR), Carlos Vainer (ANPUR) Vanessa Watson (AAPS) Angus Witherby (ANZAPS),
Absent: Wu
Zhiqiang (APSA)
Report
prepared by Angus Witherby and Hans Mastop
For GPEAN
to be able to deal with its agenda and meet its goals some kind of fund
raising seems necessary. The finance committee (Looye, Rodriguez, Stiftel
and Watson) has prepared a draft “case statement” . Implementing GPEAN’s
agenda would need some $500,000 but efforts to to date were not successful.
In terms of funding, priority should be given to supporting the 2006
conference, especially for students and young academics and suport for the
GPEAN committees and the “like officer” working groups.
Fund
raising might implicate that GPEAN needs some kind of formalisation, e.g.
incorporation, if GPEAN were to develop into a fund-receiving organisation
with all the necessary administrative requirements. ACSP for example,
developed this way, whereas AESOP so far decided not to. The organisational
structure should reflect the goals of the organisation. In either case, fund
raising is best “project led”.
At this
stage, GPEAN should review the gift catalogue for priorities and use
“financial agents” (and institutions) for projects. ACSP is ready to assist
in this regard.
The 2006
congress will operate through the normal delegate funding model. In terms of
fund raising the CC will look for support to young scholars and those from
developing countries. The Local organising committee is to focus on
local/regional sponsors. The GPEAN finance committee will be working for
both GPEAN standing committees.
It was
agreed that (a) the finance committee will work on common documentation (a
revised draft of Gift Catalogue) (b) all members will promote fund raising
in their own regions (and ideally appoint someone to support GPEAN
activities) and (c) a library of images to support powerpoints, stationary,
etc. will be developed for promotional purposes.
Global Best Papers
(Dialogues in Urban and Regional Planning Vol 1, 2004)
The first
volume has been published. The editors Stiftel and Watson did a fine job
even though the process of getting there was a bit of trial and error giving
the need to build on the variety procedures within the associations.
Questions of course remain: Is this what we were looking for? Is it the best
work and representative of the work/issues of the country/region? What
about inside looking in, or outside looking in? In terms of the final
ranking, there was little dispute, but there was some disquiet about the
ability of the project to appropriately represent the developing world. A
greater range of “voices” is needed next time, perhaps.
The book
is already in various catalogues and has been promoted directly to
libraries. Additional marketing is necessary. Several actiojns will be
undertaken (a) linking association websites to the catalogue site (b)
sending review copies to selected journals (c) getting mailing lists from
the associations for flyer distribution and (d) exploration of possibilities
for translation with the asssociations involved.
The second
volume will be published 2006 (as scheduled). Whether or not this volume
should have an overall theme is still open for duscussion albeit that such a
theme should not in any way limit the free selection of “best papers” from
any region.There is need to keep a strict time table. So nominations should
be ready by mid 2005. The editorial board will review the criteriais
concerned and publish these on the website. Submissions should preferable
not exceed 9,000 words and would vocie “the best scholarship” from the
different parts of the world. Associations can continue to use their own
selection processes.
Once again
the associations will be asked to engage in some kind of bulk buy as part of
an overall goal to get a more accessible pricing of the book. In case of the
need for translation the first principle is that authors are to be prepared
to work with translators and the second that the associations are to provide
feedback on translation issue in the very near future.
The
membership of the international editorial board will be reviewed and
communicated with the associations. Stiftel and Watson will be retained as
editors. They will look for a third editor.
Schedule
for Volume 2: Start selection process early 2005. Submissions by the end of
June 2005. Copy mateirals end of October 2005
The future
of the project after Volume 2 is open. The current contract with Routledge
runs through Volume 2. During the next year the success of the project
should be assessed. This should include reviewing the possibility of
changing the current format. A more thematic approach has been presented as
an option. The 2006 conference opens possibilities for such an approach. In
that case the steering committee of the congress and the track chairs might
play a role. The steering committee is asked to consider this. If it is
decided to go for such an approach the project description will have to be
renegotiated with the editor (Routledge).
A review
of the present website revealed that keeping it up to date seems to be a
problem whereas its performance does no longer meet present day criteria. In
order to update the present website and improving performance the technology
committee (Witherby and Romice (AESOP), supported by Looye) will therefore
(a) design a "bare bones" site, based on the current GPEAN site, which acts
predominantly as a gateway to member associations sites, progress towards
the second world Congress, and current GPEAN activities and important
archives. This “bare bones” site will also include contact details for the
second world Congress steering committee and the GPEAN committee.
(b) develop a set of
"protocols" for the use of the different areas of the site, and for the
submitting of information so that member associations can provide
appropriate content, together with guidance as to where on the site it
should be located (c) develop two list servers, one for WPSC Committee
Members, and the other for GPEAN Members.
Globalisation and international
accreditation
2002 GPEAN
CC started a discussion on whether or not GPEAN has a role to play in the
international accreditation of planning schools against the backcloth of
ever growing international mobility of planners and international
cooperation for improving overall planning education. Both the AESOP
Grenoble congress and the ACSP Portland congress payed attention to this
issue. For the time being the 2006 WPSC is set as a target for taking a
stance.
The debate
until now has not been conclusive. There is a mixture of various positions
with regards to the role of GPEAN versus professional or national
organisations, the need for regional “coleur locales”, the fear for
Anglo-American hegemony in accreditation business. Basically the debate
itself lacks focus. The general feeling is (a) that GPEAN should focus on
the educational issues whereas accreditation is a matter for each regional
professional association, though in some cases there is an educational
involvement and (b) that GPEAN should try to focus further debate.
To
substantiate the latter latter it is decided GPEAN will stimulate a set of
writings (commisioned papers) that set out the various perspectives on the
globalisation / accreditation issue in a clear way - not “country”
perspectives, but the more underlying perspectives. Progress in Planning is
willing to cooperate. A committee (Mastop and Vainer support by Watson) will
develop a proposal.
Emerging issues - Indexing of planning journals.
There is a
widespread and growing concern over the fact that present day
databases/lists of (international) recognised planning journals which are
more and more used for measuring the performance of planning departments and
schools is English speaking. Such lists then are not truly “international”
and “forcing out”native languages excludes the professionals in those
country. GPEAN could play a role in identifiying a range of journals across
multiple languages. ISI assert they wish to identify multiple languages and
have now included 48 (criteria require some English input eg title, keyword,
abstract). This is occurring in some fields. ISI has currently a very poor
match with the identified key planning journals, as came out of a review of
various journals, prize processes, etc.
In order
for GPEAN to “know the universe” of the world’s major planning journals it
is decided that GPEAN will (a) look to encouraging journals to put key
information in multiple languages. Do this through formal GPEAN letterhead
(b) ask all associations to look to encouraging journals to be
identified/put forward to ISI (Institution of Scientific Information) and
(c) identify worldwide planning journals at the GPEAN website.
Emerging issues – Global
Cities study
ACSP
Global Planning Taskforce has proposed to other member organisations in
GPEAN to join in a global study into the state of the world’s cities and
city planning. This is aimed at further stimulating research across regions
and cultures. It moves beyond informal linkages to a more active, funded
research role, that potentially could make quite strong statements.
Although
there is some concern on the scope of issue GPEAN is willing to act to aid
an effort led by others, such as the International Federation Housing and
Planning or International Society of City and Regional Planners for example,
to promote the idea. GPEAN itself is not in a position to take the lead.
Documentation of existing comparative projects would also be of assistance.
The WPSC 2006 Steering Committee will be asked to communicate to track
chairs to consider a series of themed books.
Emerging issues - Areas not
covered by an association
Is is
noted that in quite some areas, relvant to GPEAN, networks of researchers
are active without necessarily formally organised in an association of
schools, and as such not linked to GPEAN. In order to broaden its scope
however it might be useful for GPEAN to work through these networks and
encourage those involved to attend the 2006 congress. Associations are
encouraged to look at individuals being able to join associations.
Next year’s Meeting.
The WPSC
Steering Committee will meet in Salvador in May 2005
The GPEAN
Coordinating Committee will meet during the ANZAPS congress Septemer 2005.
Attachments:
