Sunday, May 28, 2017
We Need Science Diplomacy!
My colleague, Professor Paul Berkman, has launched a Science Diplomacy Center at Tufts University. This is a campus-wide initiative coordinated through the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. I look forward to working with him. We are going to offer a two day workshop this August for PHD students in Boston area universities interested in learning more about ways of ensuring that their dissertation findings are presented in a compelling way to policy-makers. To do this, we will try to equip them (including natural and social scientists) to function as “science diplomats.” There has been lots written about the need to enhance the “policy literacy”of technical specialists; we are not talking about that. That is mostly focused on the clarity and understandability of technical communication. Rather, science diplomats jump into the PROCESS of managing change, particularly when common resources are involved (i.e. oceans, the atmosphere, the Arctic, Antarctic, outer space, ocean floor, great rivers, and more), especially those that cross as well as extend beyond the boundaries of nations. This involves taking action with an eye toward balance and inclusion. Being helpful requires taking account of the interests of all, not just voicing an (informed) opinion.
The science diplomacy process hinges on (1) the acquisition and presentation of evidence regarding the way socio-ecological systems have changed, are changing and might change in the future; (2) attention to the records of government agreements and commitments (i.e. constitutions, laws, treaties, regulations, contracts, etc.) that spell out the rights and responsibilities of citizens, corporations, non-governmental actors, state and multi-state agencies; (3) the voices of stakeholders, both those who are already organized and those who are not; and (4) negotiation, or problem-solving, aimed at reconciling the conflicting interests (of stakeholders and governments). From my standpoint, such negotiations need to be facilitated or mediated by professional process managers. The output of these negotiations can be used or ignored by those with decision-making responsibilities.
What do potential science diplomats neeed to know to be effective? With regard to evidence, they need to know how to model complex systems and explain the dynamics of socio-ecological systems. When they present forecasts, they need to know how to acknowledge uncertainty and explain the sensitivity of their historical explanations and prospective forecasts to non-objective assumptions scientists are obliged to make (e.g., what time frame or geographic area to use for purposes of forecasting). Finally, they need to know how to gather, sort and “clean” many kinds of data gathered in the field and turn these data into evidence for decision making. With regard to government records, they need to know how to read and interpret official agreements and operating rules. This is not so straightforward as many people imagine. There are often multiple agreements, at different scales, that all apply in the same situation. And, often, (as Justice Holmes once said) general principles don’t decide concrete cases. Interpreting which rights and responsibilities apply requires learned interpretation. With regard to interaction with stakeholders, science diplomats must learn how to engage in stakeholder assessment (i.e. figuring out which groups have a legitimate claim to be involved in particular decisions and who can speak for them). They also need to know how to present the views of hard-to-represent stakeholders (like future generations!). Helping stakeholders clarify their interests, especially when they are part of fractious groups, is difficult, but it is the science diplomats job to do so.
Science diplomats need to be “at the table” when negotiations begin. We know that this is too often not the case. Typically, each “side” comes with evidence prepared by “its” scientific advisors. At that point, the battle of the print-out begins. We are not talking about this kind of advocacy science. Rather, we believe that science diplomacy requires the involvement of interdisciplinary teams of scientists as process advisors – at the table. Most scientists have never received ANY instruction about how to function in this context. We need to enrich the repertorie of individual science diplomats so they can help to craft case-appropriate ways of participating in the process of guiding change.
Many scientists have no interest in serving as science diplomats. That’s fine. There is plenty of work for them as disciplinary specialists. But, we need a growing cadre of scientists who want to engage in the interdisciplinary process of science diplomacy. This becomes increasingly urgent, as decisions made now are foreclosing our ability to protect, preserve or renew the sustainability of our world on a planetary scale. We are mindful of the horrors of “world wars” and the acceleration of human population growth from one billion people at the start of the industrial revolution toward eight billion by end of this decade.
Science diplomats can convene dialogues among allies and adversaries alike, pointing out common interests, and reminding everyone that we are a globally-interconnected civilization facing the fundamental challenge of balancing national interests and common interests for the benefit of everyone on Earth.
Posted by Lawrence Susskind at 10:40 AM 0 comments
Labels: common interests, doctoral students, governmental records, negotiation, science diplomacy, science diplomats, scientific evidence, sovereignty, stakeholders, sustainability
Sunday, May 7, 2017
What's Happening in the Field of Urban Planning?
The MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning is one of 72
university departments in North America that offers a professional (MCP) degree
in urban and regional planning. MIT will graduate about 70 MCP degree
candidates this year. All told, something close to 3,000 graduate degrees in
planning will be offered in the United States and Canada this June.
Graduates of planning schools, including MIT, can find work
in the public sector, the private sector and as staff and leaders of civil
society organizations both in the United States and elsewhere in the world.
About 30% of the students currently enrolled at MIT are not US citizens. The incoming MCP class includes citizens of
Argentina, Switzerland, Canada, China, India, Indonesia, Spain, Israel, Mexico,
Singapore, Pakistan, Viet Nam, Iraq and Trinidad and Tobago. That equals the average non-US enrollment in
all the urban planning schools in North America. The percentage of non-US citizens in MCP
programs has held relatively constant for the past few years.
Planning schools offer a variety of specializations. At MIT, there are four primary areas of
specialization: City
Design and Development, Environmental Policy and Planning; Housing and
Community Economic Development and International
Development. In addition, there are
three cross-cutting areas of study: transportation systems planning, urban
information systems and multi-regional systems planning. Each planning school offers a unique
curriculum, but all college and university departments that are accredited have
to cover certain basic skills and give students opportunities to learn by
doing, either through paid internships or required field-based projects. Each school
offers whatever specializations its faculty can support. Many schools also
invest heavily in maintaining their alumni network and providing job placement
assistance to their students. While 5%
of each year’s MCP class at MIT continues on for further graduate study, almost
all the rest find rewarding planning-related jobs within three to six months
after graduation.
The average planner in America earns about $80,000 a year,
but most are less concerned with the salaries they make than they are with
playing an active role in helping communities solve key problems like the
provision of affordable housing, enhancement of meaningful job opportunities,
protection of important natural resources, managing the risks associated with
climate change, improving basic urban and regional infrastructure (including
better transit and mobility), and
providing greater opportunities for citizens to participate in helping their
communities make decisions that affect them.
The full list of problems is much longer, especially in the developing
world.
In terms of the demographic mix of students entering the MIT
MCP program in 2017, about 52% are female and 48% male. This is the same gender
balance we have had for a number of years. MIT is not alone in this regard. In
addition, MIT enrollment the past few years has been about 45% non-white (i.e.
15% Black or African-American, 30% Asian-American, and 1% Native-American).
While planners in the past were often preoccupied with the
formulation of community master plans or zoning ordinances, that is no longer
true. Today’s planners are committed to taking action – helping to implement
improvements in the quality of life, particularly for the most vulnerable
segments of society, often through public-private partnerships of various
kinds. Whether employed by neighborhood, city, metropolitan, state or national
agencies, private companies or NGOs, planners are busy trying to facilitate
social change. Many MIT graduates are engaged
in entrepreneurial activities – often aiming to create new companies or
organizations that know how to use digital technology to disrupt traditional
ways of delivering public services or managing community economic development
(again, both in the US and overseas).
The U.S. Department of Labor Statistics says that there are
about 35,000 practicing urban planners in the United States. Canada counts
6,500 (and currently lists urban planning as one of the top jobs in the country
because of the rapid growth of cities). It’s hard to find reliable numbers for
other countries.
To repeat: graduate students studying at MIT are as
interested in planning in the developing world (i.e. the “global South”) as
they are in working in the developed nations of the “North.” Many expect to
work in both parts of the world during their professional careers. And, if they stay mostly in the United States,
they are probably going to move around quite a bit.
The DUSP faculty continues to diversify – demographically
and by fields of expertise. The most
recent additions to the faculty over the past few years come from public
health, law, political geography, anthropology, urban and regional economics, urban
design, and infrastructure planning. The last two members of the DUSP faculty
to receive tenure have been women. We
have new joint degrees with the Department of Civil Engineering and the Sloan
School of Management along with continuing double degrees with Architecture,
the Media Lab and Political Science. In any given semester, students can choose
among field-based projects and faculty led studios and practicums in Malaysia,
Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Israel, Singapore, Brazil, Philippines, China,
Mozambique, Haiti, Kenya and a wide range of projects in various parts of the
United States.
The Department of Urban Studies and Planning is in a
leadership role on the MIT campus, participating in the Environmental Solutions
Initiative, the MIT Energy Initiative, the reformulated interdisciplinary transportation
degree program, undergraduate teacher education in STEM subjects, the Real
Estate Entrepreneurship Lab and emerging cross-campus teaching and research
programs focused on Negotiation and Leadership, Healthy Cities and Social Entrepreneurship.
DUSP faculty have never been as fully engaged with colleagues in the Schools of
Science, Engineering and Management as they are now.
I have been on the DUSP faculty for 47 years. I’ve seen tremendous changes in what planning
students want to learn, what they seek to accomplish in the world, what the
faculty are able to teach, the kinds of action-research in which students and
faculty are engaged, the shift from plan-making to collaborative
problem-solving, and the way our field fits with the ever-shifting pattern of
evolving disciplines. The things that
haven’t changed are our focus on improving the quality of life in places and
spaces, our commitment to a range of progressive values, and our continued
involvement in improving both our analytic capabilities and our understanding
of the politics of social change.
I expect the number of students seeking to enroll in
professional degree programs in urban planning will grow. With more people living in cities around the
world, and an increasing share of college graduates looking for meaningful work
that allows them to contribute to real-life problem-solving, a career in urban
planning looks increasingly attractive.
Posted by Lawrence Susskind at 7:36 AM 0 comments
Labels: DUSP, Master of City Planning degree, MCP, MIT, urban planning
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)