This session will enable members of the GPEIG Bylaws Committee to share their ideas, and receive feedback from you all on how you would like our growing organization to be governed.
GPEIG Sponsored Session on Difficult Dialogues: Addressing Challenging Topics in International Planning in the Classroom
This GPEIG-proposed session will discuss “difficult dialogues” in international planning education, both inside and outside the classroom—including, nuances of poverty, race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and religion. Francis Owusu, Sanjeev Vidyarthi, Petra Doan, Joseli Macedo, Annette Kim, and Cuz Potter will be the panelists, and N. Emel Ganapati the discussant.
A common challenge facing planning educators is to keep current in topic areas where they teach but do not have an active research agenda. For example, a professor may conduct research primarily on housing, but teach her department’s graduate course on international planning, which is necessarily broader in scope. The annual meeting of the ACSP is an ideal venue for planning educators to meet with colleagues who teach similar courses and to share their recommendations for research and pedagogical tools in their subfields.
For this roundtable, we invited a group of 6 planning scholars, each active in a different area of research or practice that is commonly taught in a core graduate course on international planning. These scholars specialize in the areas of affordable housing, transportation, water & sanitation, natural hazards, food systems, and insurgent planning. Each presenter will share suggestions for classic and cutting-edge readings in their area of expertise, and ideas for in-class exercises or assignments that have proven effective for teaching their areas of specialization.
- RUMBACH, Andrew [University of Colorado Denver], organizer
- HOEY, Lesli [University of Michigan], moderator
- DAS, Priyam [University of Hawaii]
- KRISHNA, Ashima [SUNY Buffalo]
- MONKKONEN, Paavo [University of California Los Angeles]
- SHIRGAOKAR, Manish [University of Alberta]
Hosted by the ACSP Global Planning Education Task Force. Global planning education in North America finds itself at a crossroads once again. Since the 1950s planning approaches to understanding international and global contexts have gone through several turning points. Early theories in comparative planning, influenced by modernization theory, assumed that Europe and the United States were to be emulated as the apogee of planning theory and practice.
Beginning in the 1960s, however, planning pedagogy and research began to emphasize the particularity of cities, and the need to root planning approaches in an understanding of societies, cultures, and the historical and contemporary role of economic and political structures operating at an international scale in shaping urban issues. The 1980s saw a turn towards an interest in issues of globalization and neoliberalization, and the challenges that these forces presented to cities across the globe. Today, we witness a dramatic turn inwards in national political discourse, as political leaders in the United States ratchet up discourses of American exceptionalism, and cast immigrants and other nations as threats to American security and prosperity.
What do these changes mean for global planning education? How do we educate our students to tackle the inward and nationalistic turn in political discourse? How do we train students to understand and reflect on the ways that the global intersects with local planning practice, whether in the US or in other contexts? What challenges and opportunities does the current political moment present to planning education more generally in its efforts to bring the global dimensions of local issues to the attention of current and future planning practitioners?
This session is hosted by the ACSP Global Planning Education Task Force, which has been tasked by ACSP with reviewing contemporary practices in global planning education and research. As part of its review, the Task Force plans to hold sessions at the 2017 and 2018 ACSP annual meetings in order to better understand the perspectives of a broad range planning academics, and to foster a continuing discussion about the agenda of the Task Force with the broader ACSP community. We hope to gain input from a range of stakeholders planning educators from programs that have significant course offerings in global and international planning and those that do not, and faculty who conduct research and teaching that is explicitly international and those who do not. While taking the above questions as a starting point, we intend for this session to be an open discussion that may touch on any number of issues of interest to attendees, including the role of global planning in curriculum and instruction, recruitment and engagement of international students, issues of accreditation, and others.
- SHATKIN, Gavin [Northeastern University] email@example.com, moderator
- CAROLINI, Gabriella [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] firstname.lastname@example.org, moderator
- HOEY, Lesli [University of Michigan] email@example.com
- EHRENFEUCHT, Renia [University of New Mexico] firstname.lastname@example.org
- MCDONALD, Noreen [UNC-Chapel Hill] email@example.com
- VAN ZANDT, Shannon [Texas A&M University] firstname.lastname@example.org
INSURGENT PLANNING FROM WITHIN
GPEIG New Conversations – Breakfast Roundtable
Our panel explores shifting state practices in the context of market-oriented urban change. In the last two decades, formerly socialist and communist (or state capitalist if you will) countries enacted well known economic liberalization policies. The deepening of these “reforms” laid the groundwork for a contemporary economic globalization characterized by global supply chains, mobile capital, migration and, more recently, an emergent nationalism in economic policy. The resulting urban transformations are reshaping land, work and nature at multiple scales while at once blurring the north-south divide. The changes corresponding to liberalization attracted rich scholarly attention from the perspectives of mobilized civil society, postcolonial theory and international law from below. However, scholars in the historically north and south alike are only now grappling with the implications of more recent economic movements and counter movements. In this panel, we are particularly interested in insurgent planning from within the state. Drawing from our work across India, Italy, Middle East, Latin America among others, we expect to explore some key questions, including: What are the conditions under which reformers (guerrillas) emerge from within the bureaucracy? What are the new sites of contestation and accommodation that open up spaces for progressive politics on the ground, including the alliances that bureaucracies forge with actors outside the state? Under what conditions does the nested local state, particularly in the face of intensified globalization, gain autonomy for progressive social action? How can practices of accountable discretion by local state actors become the basis for new planning theories and policies?
By focusing on insurgent planning from within, we hope to reframe the theories and practices of progressive social change in three ways. First, looking at insurgency from within the public sector has the potential to reveal deep fissures within and expose the heterogeneities of ‘the’state. Second, it makes clear the contested as well as generative tensions that shape the work that state actors do as they confront -- and instigate – change. Third, it can help reveal how progressive spaces and outcomes actually come about through the work of local state actors, even at a time when the meaning of progressive politics is coming into question globally.
Sai Balakrishnan, Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Design, Harvard University
Meenu Tewari, Associate Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Atul Pokharel, Assistant Professor, New York University
Mona Fawaz, American University, Lebanon
Justin Steil, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Kian Goh, UCLA (TBC)
Ashok Das, University of Hawaii (TBC)
Location: Colorado D
Hosted by the Global Planning Education Interest Group. The New Urban Agenda (NUA) was presented and adopted at the UN-HABITAT III Conference held in Quito, Ecuador in October 2016. The document sets a new global standards of achievement for sustainable urban development for the next twenty years. The need for meaningful urban interventions is emphasized in the document including the role of urban planning. The main idea of the roundtable is to discuss the following questions: What are the challenges and opportunities from the NUA to global planning education? How should global planning education respond to those challenges and opportunities? What are some new and emerging questions and conundrums from the NUA that global planning education confronts and that students need to be prepared to engage with? The session will begin with brief remarks of the NUA and the ACSP/GPEAN roles and then go round the room and hear from each on their thoughts on any of the questions outlined above.
About the Speakers
Bruce Stiftel is professor and chair of the School of City and Regional Planning at Georgia Tech. He represents the Global Planning Education Association Network (GPEAN) to UN Habitat’s University Network Initiative. His research concerns collaborative governance of environmental/water policy, global movement of planning ideas, and international responses to urbanization.
Eugenie L. Birch holds the Lawrence C. Nusssdorf Chair in Urban Research at the University of Pennsylvania where she is Professor of City and Regional Planning, School of Design and the founding co-Director, Penn Institute for Urban Research. She is currently president, General Assembly of Partners (GAP), an engagement platform for the implementation of the UN’s New Urban Agenda and associated global agreements. Her research interests include global urbanization, planning history and urban revitalization.
- RUKMANA, Deden [Savannah State University] email@example.com, moderator
- SANYAL, Bishwapriya [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] firstname.lastname@example.org
- CAMPBELL, Heather J. [University of Sheffield] email@example.com
- DAS, Ashok [University of Hawaii at Manoa] firstname.lastname@example.org
- ACEY, Charisma [University of California Berkeley] email@example.com
- RAJA, Samina [University at Buffalo, The State University of New York] firstname.lastname@example.org
- SILVA, Enrique [Lincoln Institute of Land Policy] email@example.com
Join us for the annual GPEIG luncheon at the ACSP meeting. We are excited to announce and honor the winners of this year's GPEIG awards at this business meeting including Best Journal Article Award, Best Student Paper Award, Best Case Study Project Award, Gill-Chin Lim Dissertation Award and Gill-Chin Lim Travel Award.
Colorado Ballroom Section F