Special Program for Urban and Regional Studies & Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship Program DIFFICULT CONVERSATIONS
The cultivation of global leadership to address urban and regional problems has been a central objective of the SPURS/Humphrey Program at MIT since its inception in 1967. During the last 47 years, the program has been structured to nurture leadership in many different ways, drawing on a growing understanding of what constitutes good leadership, why it emerges in some contexts and not in others, and how it can be cultivated. Our changing programmat ic efforts over the years reflect the way that the dominant ideas regarding leadership have evolved. Thanks to a recent generous gift by Abdulaziz A. Alkhedheiri, we have yet anoth er opportunity to fundamentally rethink the concept of leadership to fit the needs of our time and to prioritize programmatic activities to bet ter prepare our Fellows to serve as leaders when
1319191715109862 Contents RETHINKING LEADERSHIP Letter from the Director: Rethinking UrbanAnTheAssociateNewLeadershipAmericanLeadershipPlanningDevelopmentandInclusionSeminarActivitiesattheMIT/RCCCampusPartnershipGlobalLeadershipForum:“OutoftheBox”ExperienceTheMetroLabInitiative:PlanningandGovernanceinaMetropolitanizedWorldMaineandMid-yearRetreatsEbolaCampaignAlumniNewsCollaborations
DirectorfromLetterthe
SPURS
Newsletter 3
Letter from the Director ...we have
leadership...differenttrendsthatincreasinglybecomeawarecurrentglobalrequireakindof
At MIT, we know that the ability to create an international cohort of development professionals each year is an enormous privilege, one that comes with an equally large set of responsibilities: to clearly articulate what we see as the unique value of such a community of practitioners, how we envision them changing the world, and how we can best guide them on that path. Our Fellows come from a range of backgrounds related to urban planning and development, including architecture, governance, environmental policy, and economics. When SPURS started at MIT in 1967, the goals of the program were relatively straightforward: to provide cutting-edge technological knowledge about planning and development to a handful of practitioners from the developing world. MIT then symbolized a somewhat technocratic vision of modernity, where scientific ideas and technological innovations supposedly transcended cultural difference. As we now know, this tech nocratic vision of top-down development soon drew criticism. SPURS adjusted by broadening its objective to encompass larger issues of devel opment and searching for multiple cultural interpretations of science, technology, and society. Leadership too was a concept to be crafted in multiple ways. This kind of approach—letting “a thousand flowers bloom”—was the central theme of programming then. Since 9/11, however, we have become increasingly aware that current global trends require a different kind of leadership, one that can facilitate conversations among cultures. It is not the mark of good leadership to simply let every group practice its cultural beliefs whatever they may be. What is needed are honest conversations about apparently dissimilar cultural practices with their different underlying rationalities and emotional habits. Such differences must be understood but also interrogated critically to build both intellectual and social solidarity among the Fellows, who will be the global leaders of tomorrow.Howdoes one build a setting for arguments? And, what kinds of arguments are necessary to prepare the leaders of tomorrow? What do such leaders believe in, and what must they be skeptical about to assess public policies? Can such an education be offered in the short time frame of a SPURS nine-month fellowship? This year, we organized SPURS activities around “difficult conversations” related to international development and planning. The goal was to acknowledge as well as to interrogate the multiple interpretations Fellows brought with them about global events, development goals, and underlying social values. Such conversations are intended to generate agreements as well as disagreements among the Fellows. Ultimately, we believe these conversations help the Fellows to better understand what they really believe and why. The goal is to subject deeply held beliefs
they return to their countries at the end of one year of professional education at MIT. Building on this strong foundation, this year we focused on a central question that all good leadership eventually must address: What kind of world are we promoting when we lead? We have been addressing this challenge by exploring the unique opportunity that the program offers by bringing together Fellows from around the world and creating a context for mutual learning. In this regard we note that the Hubert H. Humphrey Program emerged from an eagerness for international exchange about values deeply important to Hubert Humphrey— namely, democracy and equal opportunity. The program’s foundational mission was to foster cross-national deliberations on democracy and social justice. The founders proposed a program that would seek out exceptional midcareer professionals from developing nations and bring them to North American universities in groups. These international cohorts, defined by shared professional experience and interests, would be provided the opportunity to study together, with 10 or more Fellows at each of the Humphrey campuses, for one year. In other words, the Humphrey program’s goal is to create an international community of practitioners, and it has succeeded: After nearly four decades, the Humphrey Program at MIT has brought together close to 176 professional Fellows from 69 countries. Surveys and anecdotal evidence suggest that many of the Fellows stay in touch with each other, continuing to collaborate across borders after their fellowship years in the United States.
One may ask: What are “difficult conversa tions” about? We proposed that difficult con versations are essentially disagreements about fundamental issues that must be faced to live harmoniously in a varied but integrated world. For this reason, it is hard to structure “learn ing conversations” that draw on controversial issues; there are no clear-cut, obvious answers. Depending on the topic of disagreement, such conversations can become emotional, heated, and confusing. Cultural arrogance also affects such conversations almost always. The topics for fruitful discussions vary from large categories such as race, gender, and income inequality, to less obvious topics, such as how different cultures see the role of government in providing welfare, what is meant by “local autonomy” in planning deliberations, and whether to give land rights to “illegal immigrants.”
to intellectual scrutiny in ways that will build cross-cultural learning and global solidarity.
4 Letter from the Director ...we start acknowledgingbythatnoonehasperfectunderstanding,andthereisnotnecessarilyone“right”answer. SPURS Newsletter
To structure these “learning conversations,” we start by acknowledging that no one has perfect understanding, and there is not neces sarily one “right” answer. Also, it is useful to be aware that feelings and social identities influence every conversation in crucial but not always obvious ways. “Difficult conversations” require emotional trust as well as conceptual space to steer the evolving discourse so that Fellows can question conventional beliefs in a safe and equal environment. This means asking Fellows from a variety of age-hierarchical, gen dered, and economically stratified professional cultures to step back and accept new rules of dis course with different expectations of deference.
Yet, at the same time, it requires that Fellows feel comfortable enough to share intimate beliefs and concerns. This kind of give-and-take is a major challenge, not just for Fellows, but for us, the SPURS/Humphrey faculty and staff, as well. This may sound radically different from conventional professional education, but such conversations are fundamental to advancing the ability to lead. Only through such deliberations can one cultivate the leadership necessary to assess development goals and the efficacy of projects and policies with a fresh perspective. Such deliberation can also help expand the notion of what leadership means and who is to be led in the kind of world we live in now. In other words, we see “difficult conversations” as a way to go beyond the usual practices of polite multiculturalism that are common in exchange programs. Less small talk about “interesting” cultural practices, singing of multilingual birth day songs, hosting traditional cuisine potluck dinners, and giving public relations presenta tions about one’s country. Yes, such rituals still have their useful role, and they can be fun, but that is not enough when we live in a world so fraught with the conflict of values and ideals. Through the years, we have learned by trial and error that there is no way to avoid discord; there will always be some anxiety, arguments, hurt feelings, and uncomfortable introspection along the way. “Difficult conversations,” if entered into with mutual trust and intellectual commitment, can create the beginning of a kind of “unlearning,” raising deep questions about one’s political values and cultural beliefs, including key assumptions that one may not have even been aware of. This initial unset tling process can eventually raise the Fellows’ confidence, however, if they learn to reflect creatively on their own thinking. Drawing on recent studies in cognitive learning, and our own experience of working with the Fellows, we’ve come to appreciate the value of creating learning moments that can be a little uncom fortable. We have realized that a change of set ting and a challenge to conventional thinking facilitates learning, especially when the process is not forced, and the Fellows perceive it as of their own making—which is the case for most Fellows, who have already chosen to leave their homes and families to come to MIT for a year. This effort to create a learning community for leaders in a multinational and multi-ethnic community has made for a very interesting year. In the fall, it guided our conversations about climate change in preparation for the Humphrey Global Leadership Forum. Both SPURS and Humphrey Fellows engaged in long and complex deliberations about how climate
The Fellows have also continued to partici pate in our associate campus partnership with Roxbury Community College (RCC), and we have seen immense value in this cooperation again this year. Our partnership with RCC continues to introduce Fellows to the multi plicity of backgrounds, neighborhoods, and challenges that make up American cities, while also building strong individual connections between Fellows and Boston area students. What’s more, some RCC faculty have started auditing courses at DUSP! This has further strengthened the connection between RCC and MIT, raising the partner ship to a new height from which much more can be accomplished than what was initially envisioned when RCC became an asso ciate campus partner. It has been an exciting and challenging year. We have all worked hard to understand our differences, as well as our similarities, and we have evolved as a learning community. As we subjected our own beliefs as well as others to scrutiny, we have come to know one anoth er better. We will continue to explore this intellectual route because we believe that the SPURS/Humphrey Program is not just another international exchange program, but a step toward the construction of a learning com munity, a new global epistemic community of self-reflective and continuously learning global leaders.
Letter from the Director
We have all worked hard to understand our differences, as well as community.aswesimilarities,ourandhaveevolvedalearning
The Fellows participating in a leadership development exercise on March 13, 2015
SPURS Newsletter 5
change impacted their respective professions and countries differently. These discussions raised some uncomfortable issues about climate change and whether the international response to the issue is fair or unfair. This was reflect ed in a presentation the Fellows made at the Global Leadership Forum in Washington, DC, where they emphasized that climate change can exacerbate international discord and called for more scrutiny of the values underlying climate change initiatives. This spring, we built on the Leadership Sem inar format that we developed last year, but with a new focus on “multicultural” arguments to facilitate mutual learning. In addition to bringing back highlights from last year’s semi nar—including professor Lawrence Susskind’s negotiation seminars, and CoLab executive director Dayna Cunningham’s workshops on “presencing”—we added new sessions on facili tative leadership led by Professor Ceasar Mac Dowell and an innovative workshop on dignity and planning led by Dr. Rajesh Pradhan. We also invited some DUSP faculty members to lead “difficult conversations” on a variety of topics, including racial biases, throughout the semester.Inaddition, we organized a full-day retreat before the start of the spring semester to reunite the Fellows emotionally after the long holiday break. In January, we traveled to MIT’s historic Endicott House in Dedham, MA, for a day of reflection and community-building exercises. Multimedia artist Yazmany Arboleda joined us in the afternoon to lead group exer cises in communication, identity, and collabo ration. This retreat occurred during Boston’s record-breaking week of snowfall (34.2 inches in seven days). Some of our Fellows had seen snow for the first time, so it was a magical retreat all around.
In addition, we visited the offices of princi pal Boston-area planning agencies, where staff clarified their functions, provided descriptions of planning products, and gave presentations. One was the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), the agency responsible for initiating projects and guiding development for the central city (650,000 people). Among other things, the BRA is charged with planning the enormous current development in South Boston and with addressing the threat of rising water levels at the city’s shores on account of global warming.
The SPURS/Humphrey Fellows come from very responsible jobs in planning and develop ment all over the world. They bring with them a wealth of experience in making development happen that can be shared with each other and with the faculty of the SPURS/Humphrey Pro gram, MIT’s Department of Urban Studies and Planning (DUSP), and colleagues at Roxbury Community College. In general, the Fellows do not have prior responsible experience in the United States. We therefore offer various activities designed to provide information and experiences that can supplement the Fellows’ understanding of how planning decisions are made in this country. It is important to understand that the American experi ence is very unusual. Our American Planning Seminar this year started with a talk and discussion by Professor Alan Altshuler of Harvard’s Kennedy School, who outlined many of these differences. The United States was originally formed by a treaty among separate sovereign states, as the country’s name implies. A “state” is normally a nation, and initially the power of each US state was quite strong. Since Americans had recently revolted against colonial rule, they tended to be wary of executive au thority and were very concerned with confining its functions. They organized the Congress as a bicameral authority and determined that the members of one body, the Senate, be elected by state legislatures (this practice was changed in 1913). New laws generally need to be approved by both houses of Congress and the president; however two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress can override a presidential veto. (The Supreme Court also has a role to play, because it can rule laws unconstitutional—and therefore moot—if affected parties bring a challenge. It is more powerful than its counterparts in most otherThiscountries.)structure has led the federal government to rely a great deal on grants-in-aid to influ ence state and local actions. Though not even mentioned in the national Constitution, local governments have a larger role in American governance than they do in practically any other country. This is especially true in terms of the control of the use of land and the provision of local services (schools, infrastructure, etc.).
In sum, the US experience is unique among nations, which is why even a planner with am ple experience from another country is bound to find it confusing. And, since the American Planning Seminar is followed by professional affiliations in agencies and firms responsible for planning and providing services, this part of the SPUR/Humphrey Program is very important.
Professor Altshuler’s contributions were followed by a lecture series by Professor John Mullin, former provost of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. His lectures exam ined different assumptions that sustain concepts of planned change and supplied interesting examples of planning experiences in towns and cities throughout Massachusetts, where he has very extensive experience as a planning consul tant.Professor Mullin also suggested New England town meetings the Fellows could attend as an experience with “direct democracy.” The Fellows later attended the annual Town Meeting in Groton, MA.
American Planning SPURS Newsletter 6 American Planning
The US experience is unique among nations, which is why even a planner with ample experience from another country is bound to find it confusing.
The Fellows were also welcomed at Volpe, the National Transportation Systems Center. This federal agency is located in Cambridge, MA. This visit provided an opportunity for the Fellows to see research sites where work was be ing done on traffic safety, airline pilot guidance, tracking locations of ships, and other activities.
The Fellows also participated in joint events with Roxbury Community College. Situated in downtown Boston at Roxbury Crossing, RCC offers practical degree programs in many study areas. Visits between RCC and MIT for specific programs are now frequent, thanks to the MIT/ RCC Associate Campus Partnership. RCC students gain access to a number of high-level professionals from many parts of the developing world and the DUSP faculty. SPURS Fellows, in turn, become connected with students and faculty from Boston—Americans with a close knowledge of the city’s features and neighbor hoods and a focused ambition to make their mark on their environment. For next year, we are planning a course in transportation at RCC. American Planning has a big job. Its purpose is to familiarize the SPURS/Humphrey Fellows with planning in America, as well as to world development issues, leadership, and other issues. Our efforts to find time to explore American planning issues have been going on for many years, continually focused on further and im proved ways to understand the ways Americans do their jobs. It’s a challenging subject. Fellows often ask, “Given the limited planning powers of the US government, and the country’s emphasis on representing everyone, how do you ever accomplish anything?” That question has no simple answer; it has to be experienced.
SPURS Fellows with Paul Levy, former President & CEO of Beth Israel Deaconness Medical Center
7American Planning
On a separate occasion, we heard a lecture at MIT by the director of the Boston Redevelop ment Agency, Kairos Shen, who covered many project initiatives currently under way. We also visited the offices of the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC). This agency is very different from the BRA. Its region is Bos ton and the 101 surrounding towns and cities that make up the metropolitan area (about 3.5 million people). Its strength regarding initiatives in this multitude of settlements is necessarily modest in comparison with the BRA’s relation ship with only one urban government. But the MAPC provides valuable planning assistance within these jurisdictions and encourages compatibility of development among them. The MAPC also plays an important role in producing periodic metropolitan transportation plans—the one thing the communities must agree on to retain US financial aid.
SPURS
Newsletter
IISC does this by building the capacity of people to collaborate for greater social impact by modeling, practicing, and teaching the skills and tools of collaboration. In all of its work, IISC collaborates with three key methodological lenses in mind: 1) building power, pursuing equity, and ensuring inclu sion; 2) leveraging the power of networks towards social change; and, 3) employing love as a force for social transformation.
Leadership Development and Inclusion Seminar
SPURS Newsletter 8
The SPURS/Humphrey Leadership Develop ment and Inclusion Seminar, sponsored by the Abdulaziz A. Alkhedheiri Leadership Fund, is the core seminar of the SPURS spring term. The seminar is designed to support the Fellows in developing leadership knowledge and practical leadership skills that will help them implement their individual programs once they return to theirThiscountries.year,we collaborated with three local organizations headed by DUSP faculty—the MIT Community Innovators Lab (CoLab), headed by Dayna Cunningham; the Interaction Insti tute for Social Change (IISC), headed by Ceasar McDowell; and the Consensus Building Institute (CBI), headed by Lawrence E. Susskind. SPURS Fellows had two four-hour workshops with each of these organizations, which focused on progressive approaches to leadership: Fellows also worked with Ofer Lerner, SPURS associate, who headed the seminar, on re-examining their leadership challenges.
MIT Community Innovators Lab A center for planning and development in DUSP, CoLab supports the use of knowledge from excluded communities to deepen civic engagement, improve community practice, inform policy, mobilize community assets, and generate shared wealth. Using leader ship networks to connect communities with academic expertise and enthusiastic student engagement, CoLab helps leaders develop effective responses to structural inequality, sharpen their constituents’ participation, and make planning and development processes more responsive.
IISC is a not-for-profit organization that works for social justice and sustainability.
• Multiparty Negotiation – an approach for managing conflicts and helping groups and individuals solve problems, when more than two parties are involved – whether the parties are individuals, groups, organizations, or national governments.
• Facilitative Leadership – creating the con ditions for groups, teams, organizations, and communities to effectively and creatively cope with threats and leverage opportunities for greater social impact. It is doing so by inspires participants, invites participation, and builds commitment.
Consensus Building Institute CBI is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1993 by leading practitioners and theory builders in the fields of negotiation and dispute resolution. Their experts bring decades of experience brokering agreements and building collaboration in complex, highstakes environments.
• Theory U – at the core of the “U” Theory is presencing: sensing presence. In this process we are connecting to the world that is outside of our institutional bubble, connecting to the future as it emerges, and bringing forth the new into the world.
Interaction Institute for Social Change
IISC works with a diverse array of clients, including networks and coalitions, non profit organizations of all sizes, schools and school systems, public sector agencies, and foundations.
Leadership Development and Inclusion Seminar
Curriculum development This year we are working on developing Introduction to Transportation and Logistics, a curriculum for students at RCC. This effort was brought together by RCC faculty members Nasreen Latif and Randall Foote with support and guidance from MIT faculty members Ralph Gakenheimer, Tunney F. Lee, and Frederick P. Salvucci, as well as from SPURS Fellows and associates Julieta Abad and Ofer Lerner. RCC students in DUSP classes
Two RCC students (Amy Curran and Waller Finnagan) participated in the DUSP Dudley/ Roxbury Neighborhood Design and Planning Workshop. This new initiative benefited both RCC and DUSP students. RCC urban studies students helped to ground DUSP Master of City Planning candidates in the local community, and RCC students gained access to MIT and became more connected to neighborhood planning initiatives, community organizing, and advocacy activities.
New activities this year that comple mented previous years’ activities included class room and college-wide lectures and discussions by SPURS/Humphrey Fellows at RCC, group seminars for RCC students and SPURS/Hum phrey Fellows at RCC and MIT, visits by RCC students to MIT labs, and summer internships for RCC students at DUSP. Details follow.
Professional development for RCC faculty RCC faculty participated in urban planning classes at MIT/DUSP, enhancing their knowledge of planning and building partnership ties to MIT centered on planning and development issues.
New Activities at the MIT/RCC Associate Campus Partnership MIT/RCC Associate Campus Partnership Potluck
Since 2010, the SPURS/Humphrey Program and Roxbury Community College (RCC) have engaged in an associate campus partnership inspired by the Hubert H. Humphrey Program’s vision to extend its reach to a larger number of US citizens, particularly those in disadvantaged communities. The scope of the MIT/RCC partnership has expanded each year, and it has evolved over the last five years to become a sub stantive component of the curriculum for both RCC honor students and SPURS/Humphrey Fellows.
SPURS Newsletter
9
MIT/RCC Associate Campus Partnership
With so many international conventions, I wondered, why is climate change still a prob lem?After hearing from climate change research ers, we split into groups based on our individual perspectives on possible solutions to climate is climate change still a problem?
“Think outside the box.” These were the pow erful words I did not expect to hear as we were welcomed at MIT. We, the SPURS/Humphrey Fellows, were admitted to MIT to study urban and regional planning, and we were being asked to think outside the box? What is this place?
In my simple understanding, the SPURS/ Humphrey Program provides exposure to a new learning environment, offering lessons that may be applied by the Fellows to their respec tive countries upon their return home. At the beginning of the year, I expected that the only common denominator among us would be our shared goal to learn more about and be exposed to urban and regional planning in the United States of America. I was not prepared to be challenged to collaborate on a serious project with the other Fellows, who come from diverse backgrounds, races, cultures, and interests, so early in the fellowship year. The 2014 Hubert H. Humphrey Global Leadership Forum (GLF) brought us together to focus on a global concern that demands imme diate solutions: climate change. With the theme “Resilience in the Face of Climate Change: A Global Perspective on Leadership,” the GLF aimed this year to highlight presentations on the topic from Fellows representing their host uni versities.Inpreparation for the GLF, we were informed that we needed to engage in a process to gather information and ultimately make a good pre sentation. Fellows were given the opportunity to do research about the subject, and it appeared that many of us were not well informed, even though we were aware of climate change as a problem that is affecting our countries. Like wise, we were unsure how to start the process of coming up with an effective or innovative way to present ideas that are different from the existing ones. Some of us argued that since we are not experts, who were we to address such a difficult problem?
We had several guest speakers talk about climate change issues—including Professor Law rence E. Susskind; Eric Chu, a doctoral student who conducts research on climate change adap tation; and Rodrigo Tornquist, a former SPURS Fellow from Argentina. The presentations were so impressive that some Fellows thought that there was no need for our ideas because every thing had already been covered and done. Still, we knew that positive outcomes are happening very slowly and some results are not as expected. Gathering information together, the Fellows gained awareness of the effects of climate change in the practice of urban and regional planning. Admittedly, I myself had little prior knowledge of international conventions and treaties. The process of preparing our GLF presentation enriched me with information on the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, the United Nations Framework Con vention on Climate Change (1992), the Kyoto Protocol (1997), the Copenhagen Accord (2009), the Cancun Agreements (2010), the Durban Outcomes (2011), the Doha Climate Gateway (2012), and the Warsaw Conference (2013).
The Global Leadership Forum: An “Out of the Box” Experience
Literally, I was “out of the box” when I left the Philippines for the 2014-2015 SPURS/ Humphrey fellowship program. As a first-time traveler to the United States, I arrived with a lot of baggage, not in the form of luggage but in the form of questions. I expected that I would unload these questions within the academic year of this fellowship at MIT and return home with answers. Instead, the fall term has brought more questions than answers.
By Darrel D. Honorario, Humphrey Fellow, Philippines
SPURS Newsletter 10 Global Leadership Forum With so wondered,conventions,internationalmanyIwhy
Coming up with a final presentation was easier said than done. Again, as a group, Hum phrey Fellows had to work hard to agree to make an effective show not only for information purposes but to gain popular support from other Fellows and our audience. Eventually, we agreed to a common goal: to collectively present a topic that is acceptable to all and delivers a message that reflects the stand and culture of SPURS and MIT. With this purpose in mind, individual Fellows actively participated in considering and filtering ideas to include without letting go of equally important individual beliefs. Uncon sciously, we were applying the consensus-build ing approach to settle conflicts and negotiate important items to be included. With the help from other SPURS/Humphrey Fellows and staff, we decided to focus our presentation on planning for adaptation and mitigation.
11Global Leadership Forum change. Our groups chose topics on education, comparative recycling policies, and scales of cli mate governance, and we presented our findings to each other as the basis for developing the final presentation for the GLF. As a side benefit, the group activities served as a venue for the Fellows to learn more about each other individually. Each member was given an equal chance to contribute his/her ideas. Though there were no designated leaders for the groups, it was interesting to notice that there was always someone willing to stand up to facil itate the orderly sharing of ideas during formal and informal meetings. Also, no one had a mo nopoly on the role. Thus, our common search for a collective solution that was acceptable to all of us brought us closer to each other.
In a similar manner, the group selected two presenters, and each member accepted his or her individual duties with great responsibility and without hesitation. We worked on the presentation up to the day of our departure to Washington, DC, rehearsing in front of each other and refining our arguments. It was interesting to observe that better ideas or sugges tions sometimes pop up late in the process. Maybe this is a result of thinking outside theOurbox.presentation was called “Planning for Climate Change: Adaptation or Mitigation?” It started with a short background of the Humphrey Fellows at MIT and the challenges that the group expe rienced in coming up with the presentation. It also cited some current natural disasters attributed to climate change that have made planners (at the local, national, and regional lev el) reconsider responses to such calamities, that is, either to plan to adapt or mitigate. Further more, the presentation stressed that the current practice in planning leans toward adaptation and emphasized that this repetitive planning method does not only solve the problem but may also lead to a critical situation we termed an “adapta tionThetrap.”main message of the presentation was to advocate a shift from the current planning practice to strategies that focus on both adapta tion and mitigation. While such a shift may be politically feasible but technically challenging in developing countries, conditions are the oppo SPURS Newsletter “Why are they putting on us the burden to solve a problem that even world leaders cannot?”
But, as we continued to explore the challenges of climate change, exposure to more informa tion produced more confusion on how to derive solutions. Conflicting interpretations—and even definitions—emerged, resulting in disagree ments about what really should be the scope and content of the presentation. Heated arguments that diverted us from the topic became normal occurrences during meetings. I think we had a taste of what international leaders have been experiencing during conventions and forums. Coming in with diverse cultural backgrounds, interests, and personalities, we learned it’s difficult to find harmonious solutions without first clashing about ideas and learning to balance individual interests with the benefits to the majority.Similar viewpoints on “what” the problem is brought us together, but the question of “how” to create a solution started tearing us apart. As expected, there were mixed reactions to suggested strategies because of the varying ways they would apply in one country or another.
Discouraging statements like, “Why are they putting on us the burden to solve a problem that even world leaders cannot?” were voiced, but discussions did not disintegrate enough to stop us from continuing the task.
SPURS Newsletter 12 Global Leadership Forum Perhaps, if our current world leaders were
Though the task of problem solving may be very difficult, the idea is to trigger minds to think about simple, creative, but effective ways to influ ence, promote, and provoke people and leaders to plan for adaptation and mitigation. We ended the presentation with several short videos of Fellows talking about the impacts of worsening climate change in their countries and the need for mitigation planning. The videos were an important and passionate part of the presentation because the video shoots were unscripted and really captured the Fellows’ personal concerns about climate change. To create a multiplier effect, we shared the videos on Facebook and other social media.During the GLF presentations, Humphrey Fellows from MIT were grouped with Fellows representing American University, University of Maryland, and Cornell University. After delivering our presentation, we sensed that our presentation had had a positive impact on the other Fellows. Our message about focusing on both adaptation and mitigation for climate change was greatly appreciated by the audience. There were even Fellows who said the presen tation had enlightened them about adaptation and mitigation. For us eight Humphrey Fellows from MIT, it was a job well done! Being at MIT as a SPURS/Humphrey Fellow and attending the GLF taught me that racial, cultural, political, professional/educational, and historical differences are not hindrances to performing a common task. Though it may be difficult, it is doable if both agreements and disagreements can be properly defined and priority is given to what requires immediate action. Collaborative problem solving is not about enforcing a popular opinion or the rule of the majority but about soliciting ideas, treating people without biases, and negotiating to attain a “win-win” decision. Furthermore, it requires simply being open-minded, sharing what you know with other people, while at the same time acquiring and processing new information to make better decisions and conclusions—that is, thinking outside the box.
MIT Humphrey Fellows at the Global Leadership Forum
site in developed nations, which are considered major contributors to global warming. Pre senting as many questions as answers, we gave the audience the challenge to think about their individual roles, not just as Humphrey Fellows but also as leaders in their respective countries.
Perhaps, if our current world leaders were all SPURS/Humphrey Fellows, we would have a wonderful world for the next generations.
Fellows,SPURS/Humphreyallwewouldhaveawonderfulworldforthenextgenerations.
The first was dedicated to the challenges for urban planning, research, teaching, and practice.
There were interesting debates on South Korea’s distinctive industrialization and modernization and the role of the South Korean state in its development. Furthermore, future collaboration research between DUSP, MIT, and South Korea was discussed with the objective of helping other countries of the Global South to learn from South Korea’s experience—not only its achievements but also its mistakes—to create the conditions neces sary for continued prosperity.
The Korean workshop, South Korea’s Devel opment Challenges: Drawing from Historical Lessons and from the Work of Alice Amsden and Gill-Chin Lim, was held on October 29, 2014, at MIT’s Department of Urban Studies and Planning (DUSP). The South Korean Consortium on Devel opment Studies sponsored the workshop, which aimed at exploring possible research overlaps and research opportunities for DUSP and the consor tium. The event also commemorated the work of Professors Gill-Chin Lim and Alice Amsden.
Professor Bish Sanyal, director of the SPURS/ Humphrey Program; Professor Dennis French man, Leventhal Professor of Urban Design and Planning, DUSP; and Professor Piotr Lorens, the head of GUT’s Department of Urban and Regional Planning, gave the welcoming re marks.During this session the main speaker was Neil Brenner, professor of urban theory at Harvard Graduate School of Design (GSD), who gave a lecture titled “The Urban Age in Question—A Challenge for Planning Research, Teaching, and Practice.” The lecture centered on the current project of the Urban Theory Lab at Harvard GSD on planetary urbanization.
The workshop started with introductions by Professor Bish Sanyal, director of the SPURS/ Humphrey Program, and Dr. Brett Song, presi dent of the Korean Consortium on Development Studies. Professor Carter J. Eckert from the De partment of East Asian Languages and Civilization at Harvard University then gave his presentation, “Historical Lessons for Contemporary South Korea’s Development.” This was followed by a responding presentation by Justin Stern, Ph.D. candidate, Graduate School of Design at Harvard University. Professor Amy Glasmeier of DUSP and Dr. Jason Jackson, who was Amsden’s student at the Wharton School and Lauder Institute, University of Pennsylvania, presented their work on “South Korea’s New Development Challenges: Drawing from Alice Amsden’s Work.”
POLAND WORKSHOP By Magdalena Rembard, SPURS Fellow, Poland
The second part of the seminar was about the impact of SPURS/Humphrey alumni’s research, teaching, and practice. Brent Ryan, associate professor of urban design and public policy at MIT, moderated the discussion. Reflections were shared by alumni from Poland: Justyna Martyniuk-Pęczek, Gabriela Rembarz, Dorota Kamrowska Załuska, Magdalena Rembeza, Tomasz Rozwadowski, Sławomir Ledwoń, and Łukasz Pancewicz. All the presenters shared the great results they had had both in teaching and in practice after their year at MIT, including
13Collaborations SPURS Newsletter
Collaborations
KOREAN WORKSHOP by Shinwon Khung, SPURS Fellow, Korea
On November 24, 2014, the Poland Workshop took place at DUSP, MIT. The event was part of a workshop to cele brate the five years of collaboration between the Gdansk University of Technology (GUT) in Poland and SPURS at MIT. The event was divided into two sessions.
UNIVERSITY OF BUENOS AIRES/SPURS AGREEMENT
SPURS Newsletter 14 Collaborations
Signing of the UBA/SPURS Agreement at MIT. Celebrating the signing were (left to right, seated) director of international affairs Bernd Widdig, head of the Department of Urban Studies and Planning Eran Ben Joseph, UBA director of international affairs Gabriel Capitelli, professor Bish Sanyal, executive director of Fulbright Commission Argentina Norma Gonzalez, (top) SPURS fellow Gabriel Lanfranchi, SPURS associate Ofer Lerner, SPURS assistant director Nimfa de Leon, Bank of development for Latin American and former Humphrey Fellow Christian Asinelli, professor Gabri ella Carollini, emeritus professor Ralph Gakenheimer.
An agreement with the University of Buenos Aires signed by Dr. Alberto Edgardo Barbieri, chancellor of the University of Buenos Aires (UBA); Thomas Mesa, chair of the Fulbright Board of Directors; and Bish Sanyal, director of the SPURS/Hum phrey Program, was signed on February 9, 2015. This agreement will provide scholarships to two outstanding Argentina professionals who have graduated from UBA to attend SPURS each year.
Signing in Argentina, Fulbright chair, Thomas Mesa and UBA chancellor, Alberto Barbieri conducting innovative classes, workshops, and research projects with students; and attending international conferences (with academics from MIT.The last and most important question raised at the seminar was how to move the collabora tion between the two institutions forward. A number of ideas have been presented, and the next step will be to publish a joint, reflective publication on teaching and design methods be fore and after joining SPURS by former Fellows from GUT with an introduction by Sanyal and Lorens.
Neil Brenner, professor of urban theory and director of the Urban Theory Lab at Harvard’s Graduate School of Design, recently spoke at a workshop organized by SPURS and Poland’s Gdansk University of Technology (GUT) and claimed that we urban planners have turned this good news into a cliché. Controversy aside, there is a concrete phenomenon deriving from this fact that needs more attention: The rapid urban expansion process is making cities grow over their neighboring jurisdictions. It can be said that the world is becoming not only urban but also “metropolitan.”
The claim that we live in an urban age is no lon ger news. Since 2008, we have heard many times that most people are living in cities. By 2050, 75 percent of the world’s population is expected to be living in cities.
Currently I’m working as a consultant for both the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) and AySA, the water and sanitation company of Buenos Aires. Thanks to these various opportunities, I can verify how important it is to find ways to foster cooperation among sectorial agencies, lo cal-based organizations, and all the different government levels that participate in planning decisions.
The Metro Lab Intitiative As soon as I started SPURS, I noticed there was no specific center or even subjects devoted to metropolitan management as a whole in DUSP. As a matter of fact, there aren’t any metropolitan issues mentioned in the DUSP explorer web page, where visitors can track the faculty’s areas of research. Therefore, I thought it could be a good idea to invest my time at MIT attempting to create an organization that would focus on bridging the gap between theory and practice in metropolitan issues.
The Metro Lab Initiative: Urban Planning and Governance in a Metropolitanized World ...by 2050, 75% of the livingexpectedpopulationworldistobeincities...
By Gabriel Lanfranchi, SPURS Fellow, Argentina
The Metro Lab was born as a grassroots initiative developed by SPURS Fellows, DUSP students, and some alumni. Its mission is to generate applied knowledge to improve met ropolitan areas. The main objective is to create a global network of professionals, academics, and institutions grounded in both pedagogy and consultancy. Academia is where the questions that illuminate policies are born. In the field, methods are applied and tested by practitioners
Issues related to equity in access to public goods and services, efficiency of infrastructure, adaptation to climate change, active involve ment of the citizenry, and unequal power of social actors are jeopardizing the government of metropolitan areas. How are we going to face these challenges? Is it feasible to replicate the lessons learned from others? Which methods are best to make use of what we have learned in different metropolitan contexts? Due to my practice, research, and teaching activities, I have been reflecting on these issues for the last decade. Almost 10 years ago, I direct ed the Metropolitan Office of the Buenos Aires Province Government in Argentina, where I participated in the formulation of the Strate gic Guidelines for the Metropolitan Region.
Challenges and Questions Contemporary urban planning and city manag ers face challenges that require much more than technical problem-solving skills. In academia, we can learn the best practices to improve transportation, to reduce CO2 emissions, and to design more resilient and even smarter cities. Nevertheless, we don’t know much about how to adjust and implement those practices in the wide variety of legal-institutional contexts those large-scale cities present.
15Metro Lab Initiative SPURS Newsletter
and, as a result, research can be reoriented with new questions. Housing this new center at MIT will connect the Metro Lab with the best of both worlds in urban and metropolitan planning. The professional network that SPURS and DUSP have around the globe through their alumni will facilitate access to many different contexts and keyThisactors.initiative aims at picking up the best les sons learned from both regional and incremen tal planning. How can we implement solutions at a large and complex scale in different con texts? We expect to arrive at an answer guided by reflective practice and negotiation. We do not expect to change the power structures that underlie every single metropolitan area by pursuing ideal models of government. Instead, we intend to achieve planning methods that can bridge the gap between technical and political issues and make a difference in influencing met ropolitan thinking.
Finally, there is a potentially vital role for uni versities to play in new processes of metropoli tan planning—not as entities that bring answers to stakeholders, but as ones that facilitate joint inquiry. This departs from the traditional role of universities as expert consultants. Metro Lab envisions the university as an equal partner with a community or a group of communities sharing Professors & Gabriel presenting the Metro Lab Initiative
The Kickoff Event Since last November, a group of 15 committed people have gathered with the aim of turning the initiative into a concrete project within MIT. The idea received the support of Professor Bish Sanyal and Assistant Professor Gabriella Carolini. They helped us give shape to the idea and provided guidance on how to proceed. Today the Metro Lab is composed of a group of SPURS/Humphrey Fellows, PhD candi dates, master’s students, and SPURS alumni from countries as diverse as Argentina, China, Ethiopia, Israel, Myanmar, Philippines, Poland, Turkey, and the United States. On February 13, 2015, the Metro Lab hosted a kickoff event to introduce itself to DUSP and to begin a department-wide dialogue about contemporary planning in metropolitan areas.
Second, a central challenge to metropolitan planning is the difficulty of coordination. One key to success is making sure the right mix of people is involved in the process—including people with the authority to make decisions.
First, there is no single definition of “met ropolitan.” The definition depends on context, so what qualifies as “metropolitan” might be determined by particular social or political rela tionships, an infrastructural system, or a natural system, such as a watershed. The metropolitan scale is determined by a specific problem. No scale is universally applicable.
SPURS Newsletter 16 Metro Lab Initiative DUSP
Third, rather than supplying answers, or even structuring processes, metropolitan work might most effectively be about education. Experimen tation is easier at small scales, but the people and groups that engage in small-scale projects may not have the capacity to convert their successes into learning at a broader scale.
I had the chance to moderate a conversation with Sanyal, Carolini, and Professor Lawrence E. Susskind. The goal was to discuss about different metropolitan perspectives, including education, climate change and equity. PhD student, Lily Baum Polans, and Master in City Planning student, David Newsome, both members of the Metro Lab, extracted the fol lowing key ideas from the conversation, which will be used to guide Metro Lab’s future work.
SPURS Newsletter Maine and Mid-year Retreats
Every year, the SPURS/Humphrey Program at MIT welcomes midcareer professionals from a broad range of newly industrialized countries to nurture and reflect on their policy-making and planning skills. This academic year, I have had the privilege of leading the Fellows through a series of self-reflective experiences focused on their identity, cultural and otherwise, and how it impacts their interpersonal and profession al lives. Cultural identity and expression are challenged in a number of ways by globaliza tion. Those who are able to take an active part in global cultural exchanges are often able to experience culture as a process rather than as a product, and their personal sense of cultural identity becomes a gateway of receptivity toward other cultures. The aim of the activities I lead was to demon strate how diversity could be used as a tool in the work of SPURS Fellows as global leaders.
Self-reflection and Cultural experience: Maine and Mid-year Retreats
Yazmany Arboleda is a New-York-based artist and architect who lectures internationally on the power of art in public space. He is the creative director of MIT ENGAGE, which brings art to group leadership building in communities around the world. In 2013, he was named one of GOOD magazine’s 100 People Making Our World Better.
The first MIT Metro Lab conference was held on April 11, 2015: “Understanding the Metro Gap”. The event provided a forum for inter action with various thematic interest groups across campus on metro challenges. The Center for Real Estate, the Transit Lab, the Urban Metabolism Group and the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab were invited to share their work. Top practitioners such as Rojas, Ortiz and Contin presented cases they faced during their outstanding careers. Institutions such as the World Bank, the IADB and Infonavit were also invited to contribute their perspectives. Through this broad conversation, we sharpened our vision for the ways in which the Metro Lab can contribute to generating and disseminating practice-oriented knowledge about metropoli tan issues in a wide array of contexts around the world.The Metro Lab is a co-creation of current SPURS Fellows and DUSP students. We are extending the invitation to participate to other SPURS alumni. Together, we can build a global network that will improve the way we teach, learn, and govern the metropolis. Don’t hesitate to contact us if you want to join this venture.
The First Metro Lab Conference
17 ideas, asking questions, and jointly coming to conclusions.Tocontinue the debate initiated at the kickoff event, we organized a series of Metropolitan Conversations, bi-weekly discussions in which invited practitioners to share their experiences with the Metro Lab community. To date we have hosted Eduardo Rojas, former principal specialist in urban development at IADB, Pedro Ortiz, who recently published The Art of Shap ing the Metropolis, which presents best practic es for addressing metro issues and Politecnico di Milano’s Department Head of Urban Studies and Planning, Professor Gabriele Pasqui, and As sistant Professor Antonella Contin who shared their approach to metropolitan architecture.
The view from the Maine Retreat House
The Fellows participate in an intense bonding activity
Wherever there are risks from cultural tension and conflict, or of creeping cultural uniformity, culture itself is central to the solutions. This is firstly a matter of finding ways to establish respect for all cultural identities and to reinvig orate cultural exchanges. Culture also serves as a lever for contesting the status quo; it can re-ap propriate the processes of change in creative and constructive ways. My work with groups around the world on intercultural communication is an extension of my work as an artist. I focus first on arming us with the ability to relate to one another, before addressing all else that might be different between us. I strongly believe that through the framework of art, we can create room for the adjacent possible—that is, create room for alter nate ways of thinking in the face of challenging circumstances. We can become engaged citizens, responsible for one another beyond language, politics, religion, or ethnicity.
The SPURS Fellows are exposed to these trainings on two occasions, the first in the fall when they first arrive and the second in midyear, after they have completed the fall term. During the fall retreat in Maine, one of the more challenging activities involves asking the Fellows to allow themselves to fall to the ground as they randomly walk around the room—with my guarantee that they would be safe because the rest of us would be there to catch them. Through our conversations during this exercise we recognized how rare it is for them to touch each other (a cultural variant), and we also became aware of how independent/self-reliant many of them are (which also translates to being afraid of relying on others for support). That day, we completed the session by hav ing the Fellows agree or disagree to different statements relating to race, gender, ethnicity, and class. We had the Fellows speak to each other about these topics and about how they are expressed in the cultures that they grew up in. Together we learned a great deal: from Eleni Zemenfeskidus’ perspective on how skin color affects one’s ability to gain employment in Ethiopia to Irakli Zhvania’s take on how religion impacts politics in Georgia. Many months and a season later, the Fellows walked into MIT’s Endicott House to reunite after a month of national and/or internation al travel. The Fellows were asked to create a “self-inventory” keeping in mind the following idea: The more we engage with others, the more we become aware of our own “baggage” and the more we are able to take other concepts and allow them to influence the way we think in a critical and productive manner. The request to Fellows was simple: Write down adjectives re lating to their identity. Consider such questions as, What does my family think of me? What do my colleagues think of me? What do my friends think of me? What do I think of myself? After allowing time for them to reflect, we had a group conversation about their percep tions of themselves. Were there words that appeared in all categories? Were there words that only appeared once? How do these percep tions affect the way we approach challenging circumstances?Conflictamong individuals from such a broad range of backgrounds is inevitable. We’ve all had encounters in our professional lives that we have found uncomfortable. These range from confronting hurtful behavior, offering or receiving apologies, to managing the insecurities of others and ourselves. No matter how many times you’ve had them, confrontational con versations are always challenging. Still, difficult conversations are worth having because they are essential for growth, especially as it relates to international development. You can prepare yourself by reflecting and better understanding where you are coming from.
The SPURS Fellowship Program is dedicated to helping Fellows develop more advanced skills in honoring the equal dignity of all cultures and acknowledging their interdependencies. Paths to pluralism—which themselves are plural—pre serve cultural identities within a framework of tol erance and diversity. This is how culture in the 21st century will fulfill one of its most important functions: bringing a measure of harmony into our lives, and thus enabling us to live together.
SPURS Newsletter 18 Maine and Mid-year Retreats
February 2015—SPURS/Humphrey Program Director Bish Sanyal was the keynote speaker at the annual conference of the Israel Planning Association. He met with program alumni Naomi Carmon (SPURS 1969), Tomer Gothelf (Hum phrey 2004), and Yousef Jabareen (SPURS 2003).
Nimfa de Leon reunites with SPURS Alumni in the Phillippines Alumni News
• January 2014—Ceasar McDowell visited Turkey and met with Humphrey alumni Fazilet Tanni kulu (Humphrey 2005), Aylin Kuzu (Humphrey 2008), and Emre Ogmen (Humphrey 2009).
19Ebola Campaign SPURS Newsletter
Ebola Campaign
Fellows, faculty, and staff donated money to support the efforts of Agnes Ummuna, a journalist from Liberia. A friend of Buchbind er, Ummuna has been on a campaign to bring food and health supplies to women and girls in a town in Liberia affected by Ebola. In just a few days, Fellows were able to raise money to support Ummuna’s effort. Food and medical supplies were purchased in the United States, brought to Liberia, and distributed to women and girls in the affected area.
• Paula Moreno (Humphrey Fellow 2010) was appointed to the Ford Foundation’s Board of Trustees. She is the first board member from Latin America of African descent.
In September, the SPURS/Humphrey Fellows— through the coordination of Dina Buchbinder Auron, a Humphrey Fellow from Mexico—or ganized a campaign to raise awareness of the Ebola crisis in Liberia. They invited William Massoquoi, Humphrey Fellow 2003, who talked to the Fellows about the conditions in Liberia and the dire need of his people for help from the international community.
•
• Illac Diaz (Humphrey Fellow 2005) received the prestigious Zayed Future Energy Prize in the nonprofit organization category. The award was presented during the World Future Energy Sum mit in Abu Dhabi, Ethiopia, on January 19, 2015.
• Perry Yang (SPURS 1999), associate professor at Georgia Institute of Technology, has been ap pointed Bayer Chair Professor for the United Na tions Environment Program at Tongji Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development.
Women and children in Liberia
• January 2015—SPURS/Humphrey Program Assis tant Director Nimfa de Leon visited the Philippines after many years of absence. She was welcomed with a lunch at Café Juanita with alumni Zeny Manalo (Humphrey 1979), Teresa Parian (Humphrey 1985), Ceasar Umali (Humphrey 1989), Keichi Tamaki (SPURS Fellow 1987, from Japan) and his wife, and Yan Zhang (former SPURS assistant). She also met Illac Diaz (Humphrey 2005) for dinner. In addition, de Leon met with Maria Angela Dizon, senior pro gram officer of the Philippine American Educational Foundation/Fulbright. They exchanged ideas on how to promote MIT’s SPURS/Humphrey Program in the Philippines.
Special Program for Urban and Regional Studies Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Room 9-435 Cambridge, MA 02139 P | (617) 253-5915 F | (617) 258-0382 E | SPURS-Program@mit.edu Design by Lawrence Barriner, II lawrencebarrinerii.com Cross Cultural Exchange with Fellows from Boston University, Cornell University, and MIT
