The “Studio Abroad” as a Mode of Transcultural Engagement in Urban Planning Education

Abstract

This article reviews the dynamics and achievements of a ten-year series of collaborative planning studios and field research between faculty and students from urban planning and design programs in Canadian and Chinese universities, with additional perspective gained by observations of other collaborations. Focusing on the pedagogical and cross-cultural communicative aspects of the experience, the article suggests some key features of successful international educational collaborations and assesses the special role that physical design can play in facilitating engagement between students from different “planning cultures.”

Multiversity of the twenty-first century – examining opportunities for integrating community engagement in planning curricula

“…Examples are diverse and range from work-based learning (Higgins & Simpson, 1997;Harris, 2004), problem-based learning (e.g. Shepard & Cosgrif, 1998;Abramson, 2005), live projects (Higgins & Simpson, 1997) to participatory action research (e.g. Udas, 1998).…”

Globalisation and the urban studio: evaluating an inter-university studio collaboration in Nairobi

“…Along with more selfinterested attempts to 'brand and sell' global education as an export, more genuine attempts at international learning and urban knowledge networking are occurring and should be encouraged. At the level of the studio, these efforts include Global Studio (Rubbo, 2010), the Sino-Canadian collaboration described by Abramson (2005), the Mexican studio at the World Urban Congress (Dandekar, 2009) and the Thai-Australian-French workshop (Bull, 2004) as well as the decades-long Beijing Urban Design Studio involving a partnership between MIT and Tsinghua University.'" Our reflection on the joint studio and workshops within a long-term collaboration between DURP and Columbia University reinforces flndings in these cases that international studios are rich experiences for students and can be, when structured well, very important for teaching cross-cultural skills, respect for local learning and knowledge and the importance of building genuine partnerships across unequal and different higher educational systems.…”

“…How well does it transplant as an international version of the 'community service model'? While such engagements appear to be growing -at least among well-resourced universities and professional associations -systematic refiections and analysis of these varied experiences are just emerging (Abramson, 2005;BuU, 2004;Dandekar, 2009;Rubbo, 2010). This is despite the fact that there are challenges stemming from dynamics of culture, histories and institutional differences in planning systems By exploring and analysing an engaged collaborative studio and three complementary workshops involving the Department of Urban and Regional Planning (DURP) at the University of Nairobi and Columbia University (primarily the Graduate School of Architecture, Planning Preservation (GSAPP) and the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA)) and the Municipality of Ruiru, Kenya, this paper aims to contribute to the growing discussion on international studios and partnerships and distil lessons for how to better structure them to avoid reinforcing power hierarchies and to obtain the desired positive impacts for all participants.…”

“…At the same time universities themselves are undergoing globalisation pressures reflected in attempts to attract an increasing number of international students and set up programmes or components of programmes abroad.^ Not surprisingly these developments are raising concerns about the need to internationalise curricula at home (Pezzoli and Howe, 2001), and the content and structure of programmes abroad (Nayyar, 2008). Such programmes include international studios that are part of core curricula in many planning departments and take place within international or global collaborations (Abramson, 2005;Rubbo, 2010).…”

Planning education and inter-cultural collaboration: awareness, innovation, reflection and preparation for practice

“…Likewise, Yigitcanlar et al (2009) describe a process of learning through exchange, even where logistical limitations to the program where apparent. Importantly, however, commonalities in planning education and professional practice offer a means to build mutual exchange through common appreciation of the core concerns of planning (Abramson, 2005). Those with a generic planning education can see planning as a commonality in otherwise unfamiliar collaborative environments.…”