ACSP Blog
Blog Home All Blogs
Search all posts for:   

 

View all (13) posts »

One Year Later: Thoughts on PLANET & Planners 2040

Posted By Administration, Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Author:
Mai Thi Nguyen, Associate Professor
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
nguyen@unc.edu

It’s been a year since the closure of the beloved PLANET listserv and in this essay published in Planning Theory & Practice, “When a joke represents so much more: the end of PLANET and the rise of planners 2040 Planning Theory & Practice” (Vol. 18 , Iss. 1, 2017) we give our perspective on the events surrounding the closure of PLANET and the creation of an alternative professional discussion platform, Planners 2040. We argue that a generational shift is occurring within the field of urban planning and the existing structure of privilege and power should be dismantled so that we have a more inclusive planning academy. The way planning faculty and students communicate and interact with each other creates an environment of inclusivity or exclusivity and the PLANET listserv evolved over time to become unwelcoming and exclusive.

The authors of this essay founded Planners 2040 to help facilitate and cultivate an online planning community that promotes civil discourse, productive exchanges, positive interactions, and connects a diverse set of faculty members, students, and practitioners with shared intellectual interests. The discussion group is moderated by five faculty members, has a set of official guidelines, and members can be removed if they do not abide by the guidelines. Planners 2040 has over 1700+ members (and growing daily) and has generated considerable activity, with substantive dialogue and engagement on a wide variety of topics, many of which were never discussed on PLANET. There is a much greater diversity of individuals engaging with one another as evidenced by “likes” – a quick, standardized show of support with no easy equivalent on an email listserv – and comments on postings. As shown in the infographic, 52% of Planners 2040’s members participating by liking posts, 26% of members commented on other posts, and 18% of members created original posts. The ability to post links to newspaper/magazine articles, journal articles, or other references promotes richer engagement and discussion in a way that is impossible on an email listserv. The diversity of topics and contributors has also expanded from what was represented on PLANET.

Thus far, the tone and culture on Planners 2040 has been supportive and respectful, with few, if any, personal or ad hominem attacks. Some have not chosen to join Planners 2040, especially more senior members, because they are not Facebook users and do not wish to join the site. We respect and echo the concerns of those reluctant to join Facebook and acknowledge the new “digital divide” that may be opening up in academia with the loss of those voices not participating in Planners 2040. It reveals an evolving communications challenge for the discipline, given that many younger planning scholars appear to be more comfortable using these social media tools. We continue to advocate for a permanent platform that would seek broad engagement in a simple to use format. ACSP is currently working towards this goal with UNIverse. In the meantime, Planners 2040 has demonstrated that resetting expectations can result in healthy and active professional dialogue.

Now that a year has passed, perhaps it is time to reflect on what we lost when PLANET was dissolved. What has been gained with the creation of Planners 2040? In addition, how can Planners 2040 and UNIverse serve the planning community better?

 Attached Files:

This post has not been tagged.

Share |
Permalink | Comments (1)
 

Comments on this post...

...
Ben Davy says...
Posted Thursday, March 9, 2017
Dear Mai Thi and other authors

I've read your comment in PTP with great interest. I also found the jokes on PLANET often neither funny nor appropriate. Compared with other planning websites or listserves (e.g., AESOP, PLPR), PLANET displayed a sense of 'courtesy' that seemed sometimes very strange to an accidental member from an European planning school.

Quite frankly, I still miss PLANET very much. I've benefitted enormously from the haphazard exchange on many stimulating planning matters. Unfortunately, I find the ACSP website much less convenient for quickly sharing an idea or inviting comments. And surely, I don't do Facebook or other 'social media.' You guess in your article that my reluctance to do Facebook or other 'social media' can be explained with me being a 'more senior member.' I am 61, and I'm writing today hoping that you re-consider this view.

In your article, you are writing (at p. 161):

'We respect and echo the concerns of those reluctant to join Facebook and acknowledge the new “digital divide” that may be opening up in academia with the loss of those voices not participating in Planners 2040. It reveals an evolving communications challenge for the discipline, given that many younger planning scholars appear to be more comfortable using these social media tools.'

Since PLANET's demise, the United States have experienced a revealing election campaign that was based, in large parts, on the strategic use of 'social media.' Facebook, Twitter and other 'social media,' it became quite obvious, can quickly grow a-social or even anti-social. I cannot understand that in the light of this experience you even consider it as a positive moment that 'many younger planning scholars appear to be more comfortable using these social media tools.'

What might be a-social or anti-social about Facebook's Planners_2040? The greatest problem with the culture of liking, sharing, or being a follower is the narrow window of information that a Facebook user preselects by liking, sharing, or following. In my view, a person has a strong kharma if she persists in the face of destiny and adversity, not because she has received many likes etc. (see Jennifer's poster).

Perhaps by being 'comfortable using these social media tools' you've meant not computer literacy, but the younger generation's propensity to expose themselves to disrespect, opposition, bad taste, and wrong ideas. Because only our ability to deal with such adversity makes us social beings. But, oops, these things were why the group of 118 had left PLANET. How can you, after the American voters elected a president who thinks that Twitter and Breitbart are appropriate ways of forming a political opinion, still believe that cocooning on Facebook can be helpful?

Please read my comment not as comment on your Planners_2040 initiative, but as a comment on your analysis.

Warm regards

Ben (your accidental friend from Dortmund)

Permalink to this Comment }

Mission

The Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning promotes education, research, service and outreach in the United States and throughout the world by seeking to:

  • recognize diverse needs and interests in planning;
  • improve and enhance the accreditation process, and;
  • strengthen the role of planning education in colleges and universities through publications, conferences, and community engagement;
  • extend planning beyond the classroom into the world of practice.

Connect

2927 Kerry Forest Parkway • Tallahassee FL 32309