Speaker
Description
This proposal aims to provide a specific answer to the question posed in Track 8: Is it possible for the planning practices and pedagogies derived from developed geographies to become responsive to the planning experiences of the entire world?
This methodological and empirical contribution is based on feedback from an international cooperation workshop in urban planning that has been bringing together French and Tunisian partners in the city of Sfax for the past twelve years (2012-2024). This studio, set up at the Université Grenoble Alpes, aims to get students, teachers, universities and local partners from both countries to work together as horizontally as possible on a wide range of urban issues: rehabilitation of the old town, traditional houses and orchards on the outskirts, maintaining urban agriculture, the place of rural dwellers, children and migrants in the city, accessibility of public space for people with disabilities, daily mobility for residents, the link between the train station and the city, etc.
We speculate that it is possible to move towards a form of adaptation to local planning experiences by rethinking the teaching and cooperative postures of French teachers and students (exchange rather than transfer of skills, work over time, co-construction) and by profoundly and incrementally modifying pedagogical engineering. The serial nature of the studio over a long period of time and the co-construction of work topics between teachers have resulted in workshops that are less prescriptive and more processual and shared. Some studios took the time to explore a little-documented urban phenomenon (year 1), to problematize it (year 2) and then to network local stakeholders so that they could take over. These studios have transformed the perspectives of French students, and have sometimes led to thesis work by PhD students from both countries.
The result, however, is never fully satisfactory, as horizontality is only a distant horizon. Significant differences remain between partners in terms of investment capacity and curriculum. Reciprocity of experience, although a principle, is rarely effective, and the geopolitical context between the two countries often catches up with the studios.
References
Abramson, D.B. (2005) ‘The “Studio Abroad” as a Mode of Transcultural Engagement in Urban Planning Education: A Reflection on Ten Years of Sino-Canadian Collaboration’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(1), pp. 89–102. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X04271475.
Frank, A. (2019) ‘Enhancing Internationalisation through Inter-Institutional Collaboration: Innovative Practices in Planning Education’, Transactions of the Association of European Schools of Planning, 3, pp. 7-22.
Klopp, J. et al. (2014) ‘Globalisation and the urban studio: evaluating an inter-university studio collaboration in Nairobi’, International Development Planning Review, 36(2), pp. 205–226. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3828/idpr.2014.13.
Macedo, J. (2017) ‘Studios Abroad: A Challenge in Innovative Pedagogy’, Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, XXIX(2), pp. 63-78.
Roux, J.-M. (2022a), Les ateliers internationaux d’urbanisme, prisme et creuset d’une discipline. Grenoble 1969-2019, thèse présentée pour l’obtention du diplôme national d’Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches (HDR). Spécialité Aménagement, urbanisme et dynamique des espaces, Sorbonne Université.
Roux, J.-M. (2022b), « The International Cooperation in Planning Studio as a Pedagogical Approach. Experiences from Grenoble & Sfax (2012-20) », Transactions of the Association of European Schools of Planning, 5(2), Changing Contexts for Planning Education, AESOP, doi: 10.24306/ TrAESOP.2021.02.004a
| Keywords | International urban planning studio; horizontality; transformation skills; France; Tunisia |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
