Over the summer, I was face-to-face with Dr. Ken Reardon (Cornell) at the PhD Symposium in Vancouver, British Columbia discussing my research and teaching interests. He responded, saying that it would be too bad for me if I did not gain a job teaching within a planning department. What a pity? I don’t think so. My womanist intuition immediately kicked in and resisted the victimization. I quickly replied: I am not the victim! The sense of pity for those of us who do not “fit in,” according to the powers that be, is one way for the planning establishment and/or authorities to assert supremacy and control when in reality they are feeling anxious and inadequate about loss and/or change. Five or ten years ago, such a downward gaze may have worked to silence me, or scare me into appeasing Beauregard’s concept of the modernist planning project. To that, I can’t help but remember what my five-year old niece said to me when she got out of bed, brimming over with the energy and anticipation of a brand new day: “I’m woke now!” Indeed, I am woke (e.g., awake), and feeling sorry for myself or others with similar perspectives and worldviews is simply not an option. We are here, and there are far too many academic opportunities and venues (that will not be afraid of these differences and challenges) to feel loyal or limited to any one master, so to speak. And, thus, it is a brand new day.
As I wind up my dissertation, if it happens that I am courted to fulfill my life’s work outside of planning, then so be it. It won’t be my fault; I am not hiding somewhere under a bush for nobody to see. But the philosophy that the PhD in Urban Planning will find the best “fit” in a planning environment does not jive with the rapidly changing global economy and socio-political landscapes in the U.S and beyond. The safety net is primarily for those who need it. On the other hand, there are those of us, who because of life’s circumstances, have been learning to walk on water and have faith when there was very little, if any, evidence that hope was on the horizon. We are out here on the water because we have to, and we know the risks. Yes, we may lose the opportunity to be “Professor of Planning,” but we may, indeed, gain greater mobility and complexity by not limiting ourselves and our interests to planning structures that do not, in practice, encourage and/or support a transdisciplinary approach to teaching and research. So, when the outlook looks dim to me and my faith in myself and others begins to falter, I keep the focus on my goals, which is the prize. What makes me think, I say to myself, that planning “authorities” will be able to implement the structural changes needed to welcome and appreciate people like me? Such an embrace takes skill and power not just rhetoric. Few planners and professors, as far as I’m concerned, have demonstrated the will and the ability to be truly inclusive, i.e., how well does your town or city planning department include those who have historically been left out of the process? How about your academic department?
Well, I’ll take my chances out here on the water and stand firmly in the belief that the key to a rich, vibrant career in academia with the PhD in Planning is being content with the experiences along the way that have given me the courage and the ability to meet whatever comes my way, because as its said in black folk tradition, I know that I know that I know!!
annalise fonza, PhD Candidate
University of Massachusetts-Amherst
Department of Landscape Architecture & Regional Planning
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I'm curious to know more about this -- it's a little unclear from your post, but I infer that Reardon was suggesting that your research interests are outside the realm of what is normally marketable in planning departments. Do I have that right? In other words, it seems like you're saying that he thought you would have a hard time getting a job in a planning department given current realities of departmental needs and how those fit with your own work?
If I am reading this right, then I'd be interested to know what those interests are. I think a discussion of what is and is not "useful" research and experience in the minds of a hiring committee is an interesting and useful conversation.
When I think of my own experiences, it seems like the people I know who have been on the market in the last few years have had more trouble the more they stray from having a very narrow, definable research agenda, and one that is, moreover, quantitative in nature.
Generalists, qualitative researchers and activist planners, on the other hand, seem to have a somewhat more difficult time. The funny thing is, planning departments I am familiar with have faculty that do these things, just not young faculty. Twenty years ago, ten years ago, maybe even five years ago, it seems like those approaches were more valued than they are today.
The question, then, is whether this is a harbinger of things to come, or just a trough in an otherwise cyclical pattern.
Just a thought. Or ten.
Nice post Annalise. Though a different thing, it helped me think about the challenge of breaking through. My job search has been an interesting, enlightening experience. I have met a number of smart, accomplished people, all of whom approach urban planning in a manner that in one way or another differs from my own perspective. Cultures in academia run deep in ways that surprised me. This has come into focus for me particularly because urban design straddles disciplines: I find myself butting heads in distinctly different ways when trying to gain entry into design, policy analysis, and community advocacy oriented faculty, and being able to compare them has helped me make sense of the process. I was expecting to be challenged about my substantive knowledge or my research - and I certainly have been - but I didn't realize the extent to which the judging would be about who we are as much as how good we are.
DF: Actually, my interests are quite normal, or at the least, they are practical: planning history and theory, black urban history, whoman's studies. My approach is what is out of the orbit for most: womanist methodology. Are you familiar with it?
Anyhow, I didn't really write to generate a discussion on what is considered useful academic research. Coming up with a list of normative and non-normative research interests, frankly, would not be useful to me. My goal in writing the blog was simply to give voice to a certain understanding about power and change, which have the wonderful potential to show up at any time in any given career.
Jason,
Keep on keepin' on!
Oh, and in the words of Octavia Butler: Everything you touch you change!!! God is change.
Annalise! I'm so glad you're here!
Annalise:
Could you do a short post to educate the planning community about what womanist methodology is and how it is applied to planning? I have never encountered it before in planning and I am sure there are others out there in the same boat. Thanks!
Kate
Kate,
Just seeing your comment after a very busy April. The word "womanist" has its roots in black folk traditions. Unfortunately, there is not one orthodox womanist methodology and debates over naming "womanist" are increasing. For example, Africana womanism, Walker's womanism, and womanist-talk that has been developed by black Christian theologians (mostly social ethicists), each have their own epistemologies and claims to authenticity. I was influenced by the latter two schools of thought.
For brevity's sake, womanist identity and thought is not dependent upon academic or institutional structures for legitimacy, though a womanist consciousness can thrive there too! I will post a brief excerpt that I have been working on in my dissertation over the weekend, but, in the meantime, there are several references to womanist thought and methodology on scholar.google.com if you are interested in reading more.
annalise
Post a Comment