Transforming Cities and Minds through the Scholarship of Engagement: Economy, Equity, and Environment

Reflections

207 Reflections Lorlene Hoyt An “Ecosystem of Knowledge” The ecological system of knowledge is complex and multi-dimensional, often messy and confusing, with many modes of feedback and many cross connections. And, at every point of this multiply-connected system there is learning and enhanced understanding, resulting in expanded knowledge. —Ernest Lynton (1994, 10) Transforming Cities and Minds makes the case for a new epistemology known as reciprocal knowledge: development of knowledge and real learning on both sides, city and campus, achieved through a diverse, dynamic , and complex network of human relationships. I have introduced you to the group of six humble and daring students with whom I collaborated to create this book: Marianna, Gayle, Nick, Eric, Leila, and Ben. You have been given a front-row seat to the products of their scholarly engagement, as they approached the specific challenges of six of America’s old and struggling cities. You now know the histories, challenges, and aspirations of the cities they explored, and you have seen examples of how cities can transform themselves by simultaneously engaging the three Es: economy, equity, and the environment. What I have yet to fully detail is the story of our own engagement. This chapter relies primarily on data I collected over a period of two years from a variety of sources, including course syllabi and assignments, meeting notes and transcripts, personal interviews, group discussions, student blog posts and theses, and my own personal reflections. Here you will meet and come to understand the interactions among the seven participants you already know—the six thesis writers and me—as well as other faculty, students, staff, and community partners. You will witness our efforts to engage with one another, how we evolved as individuals 208 Transforming Cities and Minds through the Scholarship of Engagement and as a group, our relationships with one another, the setbacks, tragedies , and maladies that nearly derailed us, and the victories we celebrated as we collaboratively produced the book you now hold. Where earlier chapters are intended to inspire prospective city planning students and practitioners, this chapter aims to inspire city planning educators. Just as bold changes in the practice of city planning are needed to transform America’s cities, radical new methods of instruction and mentorship are the first step in transforming the minds of the profession. This, then, is the story of the forth E, engagement—the essential link between city planning education and city planning practice. Engagement , a people-centered methodology, is key to transforming minds and achieving an epistemology of reciprocal knowledge. It challenges the dominant paradigms in both higher education and local politics, calling into question the notion of expert knowledge, which drives the culture of most research universities, as well as top-down approaches to urban planning that exclude citizens from decision-making processes. Engagement is risky business for scholars and practitioners alike. It’s not for the faint of heart. And it’s exactly what this moment in history demands. A Sustained Partnership Our collaboration began in September 2008 at the dawn of the Great Recession when Marianna, Gayle, Nick, Eric, and Leila came to campus and made a commitment to working together, with me, and with the people of Lawrence during their first year at M.I.T. They focused their time and talents on strengthening the city-campus partnership and tackling M.I.T.’s tough coursework before the thesis requirement emerged as a priority. To create a space for students, staff, and faculty participating in MIT@Lawrence to build camaraderie, troubleshoot project-related problems, and reflect on their practice, I created a year-round course called Theories From, and For, Practice. Mirroring the principles of community organizing developed by Marianna and other civic leaders in Lawrence, we adopted a horizontal management structure for the course. Enrolled students and I cocrafted the syllabus. We rotated agenda-setting, facilitation, note-taking, and time-keeping responsibilities (Hoyt 2010). Reflections 209 To develop a city-campus theory of practice, I worked closely with Marianna and Nick on a documentary about the partnership’s ten-year history as told by participants on both sides—city and campus. At first Marianna resisted; she was fiercely loyal to her colleagues in Lawrence, “ambivalent toward MIT@Lawrence,” and “skeptical of academia” (Leavy-Sperounis 2010b). Nick also had issues with our work; he wasn’t happy with his role as a technical expert for the project (Iuviene 2008d...