Hi all
Sorry I'm a little late on this debate, I've been sinking under
methodological glitches...
1. Well done John, I like the two pronged assault with papers spread around
as well as a definite focus.
2. Could I also suggest that if we have any say on timing, the fringe
session would be Wed/Thur assuming a Monday start as this gives people time
to see some individual papers and get a feel for what the fringe might offer
them in order to maximise attendance.
3. In response to some of Dave's points, I like the
political/methodological/global/local focus etc, though perhaps I would be
slightly more cautious. Indeed, it might be an idea for all of our
individual papers to engage with some aspects of these debates as our
expertise allows, in order to get audiences fired up with some questions and
background?
4. One of the key things we could do (as well as wind a few people up by the
sounds of it) would be to start at the beginning by trying to unpick some of
the assumptions that abound when we think of cycling and the ways we come to
know it and research it. We have already touched on some of these such as
risk and health. From a breaking down of these assumptions and looking at
different understandings, perhaps then the debate could go on to look at
ways in which different understandings can be highlighted methodologically
and discursively etc? Or perhapds this should be the other way round,
highlighting the ways in which understandings of cycling as risky etc are
constructed by the ways in which we think about it, research it, and
represent it as opposed to actually doing it.
5. I hope some of this makes some kind of sense. Any comments you know where
I am....
Justin
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Horton [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 5:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Velo City in Dublin
Sounds great! Well done John.
Specifically:
1) I like the idea of an informal fringe meeting, which presumably would
provide us all with at least one structured opportunity to meet up during
the conference, and also potentially and hopefully enable the expansion of
our network. Having never been to a Velo-City I don't know how fringe
meetings work, but I assume we can drink wine and beer, and have a bit of a
do?!
2) I also think a debate would be good.
I like John and Paul's ideas, and think they fit what we're about. I'd
happily propose or second, for example, something like "cycling is cultural
all the way down" (though that seems remarkably uncontentious, doesn't
it?!).
Another idea for a staged debate, which might resonate with our
interests/expertise, could be a methodological one. We could start, for
example, from a statement such as "Current research into cycling tends to be
dominated by quantitative methodologies, and needs better to appreciate the
understandings derived from qualitative approaches", or - more bluntly -
"research into cycling needs to jettison quantitative in favour of
qualitative methodologies".
More overtly politically, but probably more idiosyncratically, I'd also be
interested in something along the lines of "You can't promote cycling
without criminalising the car" or "Cyclists need more consciously to forge a
global social movement".
All the best
Dave
|