As discussed in a previous blog [insert hyperlink], Prof. Schaab and I attended a hybrid workshop held in Bonn between 19 and 20 April 2024. While Prof. Schaab attended the workshop in person, I decided—on account of the duration of the workshop—to participate and present from the confines of the University of Pretoria in South Africa rather than travel to Bonn, Germany. Through our respective presentations, Prof. Schaab and I introduced the WoPedyP project, the methods used to gather data, and some of our emerging findings to a group of diverse and esteemed researchers based in Germany and beyond. In light of our colleagues’ extensive experiences and knowledge base regarding urbanisation in the global south, there were some lively and insightful discussions during the Q&A sessions. Indeed, I, for one, received feedback and comments that undoubtedly made me think and reflect upon, inter alia, what (1) we as a project group could improve on and do differently in terms of our approach and (2) what I personally as a researcher of sense of place in a peri-urban setting could do differently and should consider if and when I pursue postdoctoral research on a similar topic. More generally, then, I could say that the feedback and discussions brought to light (possible) future lines of inquiry. Notwithstanding the valuable outcomes of the Bonn workshop, some of which I have enumerated above, this blog post is not dedicated to highlighting and reflecting on such (as already stated, a separate blog exists exclusively for this purpose). Instead, this blog post serves as a means for me to share my experiences following my decision to step out of my comfort zone and pursue an opportunity that arose through my participation in the said workshop: the opportunity to deliver my first guest lecture at a higher education institution outside of South Africa.
***
As students and early career academics, we have always been encouraged to participate in conferences and workshops related to our research or fields of interest. Apart from enabling us to learn from and engage with subject experts, the other common reasons cited for this are: It is another way to keep abreast with the most recent work and developments in our respective fields; We are likely to build lasting networks with fellow early-career academics and emerging scholars; Such events can present opportunities and open avenues for future (cross-disciplinary and international) cooperation and collaboration.
Despite being cognisant of all this, I was still surprised when a fellow attendee and presenter, Shaharin Elham Annisa, contacted me a while after the workshop to arrange a quick online meeting. And I was beyond incredulous when she – in her capacity as one of the coordinators of the MSc programme in Integrated Urbanism & Sustainable Design (IUSD) at the University of Stuttgart – invited me to deliver a guest lecture to her MSc students. In particular, Annisa asked me to deliver something similar to what I delivered in Bonn but to provide more detail about the WoPedyP project and the co-production process we used during our stakeholder workshop in March 2024. I was also asked to provide some insights into how sense of place (SoP) – including place meanings and values – informed and was incorporated into our project more generally.
Admittedly, I was reluctant to accept the invitation at first. No doubt, trying to cover everything adequately in a 45-minute lecture would prove challenging. This, however, was not a major concern. My primary concern was that I had no prior experience doing something like this, i.e. presenting online to a room full of Masters students from a different university on a different continent. The task seemed daunting, to say the least. Moreover, a sense of fear and doubt started creeping in. Nevertheless, with encouragement from both Annisa and my supervisor, Prof. Nerhene Davis, I accepted the invitation.
Preparing for the Lecture While preparing my notes and slides for the guest lecture, I was challenged to distil my thoughts and summarise key concepts, literature, and ideas. Striking a balance between providing enough detail and remaining concise was a delicate task, but it was one that I managed to complete with some guidance and pointers from Prof. Davis. Her advice, together with more than a few practice runs, prepared me to deliver my lecture on June 24th .
On the Day of the Lecture Before my lecture, the course coordinators delivered another, more interactive one. Sitting in on this lecture (albeit virtually) reminded me of my earlier years as a student. I got to relive something I particularly enjoyed and miss from my Philosophy seminars and lectures: sitting with fellow students to critically discuss and debate concepts, theories and ideas after a close reading of a text or body of work. On the whole, it was refreshing to listen to the students’ questions and comments as well as their understanding of the bodies of works discussed (e.g. those produced by Vanessa Watson and Edgar Pieterse on (Sothern) Urbanism). Given my exploration of these works during my PhD journey, I found the session all the more interesting.
Delivering the Lecture Itself When the time came for me to present my lecture, I was initially nervous. As I got into the lecture and started speaking about topics I am thoroughly interested in and enjoy sharing insights about, the nerves quickly faded. It was exciting to discuss co-production and share insights from the co- production process used in the WoPedyP project with students who, at this stage in their careers, were critically applying theory to real-world practice. It was equally exciting to share my understanding of SoP and its potential for placed-based planning endeavours and research into place identities. Before I knew it, I was done with my lecture. The floor was then opened for questions. From the questions posed during the Q&A session, two in particular had a profound impact. The first question was aimed at gaining clarity on something I said. A student asked what I meant by the phrase “mushrooming of settlements” in the study area. As the student elaborated on their query, I realised that in preparing my presentation – because I am now rather familiar with the study area and development therein – I glanced over the fact that others did not have this background understanding of the place. So, whilst I described the growth of buildings and structures over time and had a map of the study sites and study area on my slides, I realised that it would have been more beneficial to the students to show a series of aerial images depicting the change in land use and land cover over time, as was done by McCusker & Ramudzuli (2007), for example. This is no doubt a lesson to keep in mind for the future.
Apart from the above, the question posed, and the subsequent suggestions provided, drove home something I have become acutely aware of over time. This is that, in as much as my research involves making a case for the incorporation of social science concepts in arriving at more nuanced understandings of the peri-urban – based on experiences and hopes for the future, for example – it is still important to incorporate spatial analyses and geospatial techniques to understand the peri-urban and peri-urbanisation. On the whole, then, the question the student raised really underscored, in my mind, the importance of mixed method approaches and multi/trans-disciplinary research to (peri- )urban theory.
The second question posed was about the methods used to measure SoP or create an indicative SoP score. A student wished to understand how I arrived at the questions used to measure SoP. Moreover, they asked whether measuring SoP does not rob the concept of its complexity and multifacetedness – which is the very strength of the concept – and so render it flat-footed.
While I did not have my derived conceptual framework of SoP at hand to explain how I arrived at indicative SoP scores in detail, I tried my best to explain the components of SoP that I found in the literature and how I measured each. More importantly, I explained why this approach could be useful – albeit problematic – from a planning and theory perspective. Even so, I did and still do share the student’s concern about operationalising SoP in such a way as to measure it. I told the student this. I then also circled back to the fact that my SoP inquiry involved both qualitative and quantitative approaches, the former of which did more justice to the concept in all its complexity and layered nature. Despite this, I realise that the student’s question – which I have also been turning over in the back of my mind for the past three years – is something I need to seriously engage with and reflect on in the concluding chapters of my thesis.
Final Comments I am most appreciative of the opportunity afforded to me by the coordinators of the MSc programme at the University of Stuttgart, particularly Shaharin Elham Annisa. Additionally, I am deeply grateful for the MSc students’ active participation and their valuable comments and queries. I can honestly say that I left the lecture not only having shared something that I am enthusiastic about but also having gained insights that will undoubtedly shape how I approach and present future research. Overall, given my experience of delivering my first guest lecture at a different institution from my own, I look forward to similar opportunities in the coming months, especially as we (the WoPedyP Team) consolidate our research findings.