TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

1.a. Research Topic

1.b. Project Objectives

2. Scientific Originality

3. Research Methods

4. Work Plan

5. Collective Expertise

6. Collaboration

7. Organisation and Management

8. Training Need

9. Justification of the Appointment of Young Researchers

10. Training Programme

11. Multidisciplinarity in the Training Programme

12. Connections with Industry in the Training Programme

Bibliographical References

 

 

 

1a. RESEARCH TOPIC

 

In the last decades the processes of change set in motion by the increased globalisation of the exchange of goods, information and people had and still have a strong impact on European cities. The deepness and complexity of these overall processes put the economic, political, cultural and social identities of these cities under pressure by increasingly questioning their fundamental traits[1].

 

From the economic point of view, the breakdown of specific (territorially defined) patterns of technological innovation and economic development brought about far reaching processes of relocation of production sites. The process had similar features all over the world and increased the spread of competition and market regulation mechanisms. Impacts, however, varied. Some cities passed through a deep restructuring process relatively successfully shifting their activities towards a service based economy (e.g. Milan, Frankfurt, …) while others are still in a crisis (e.g. Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Essen, Duisburg, …). Some maintained their industrial character renewing industries and production processes (e.g. Stuttgart, Munich, Bologna, Strasbourg, Bordeaux,…) while others declined to more peripheral roles, like many cities in southern Europe (Milan, Barcelona are an exception under this respect).

 

Also from the political point of view, cities experienced a similar and increasing pressure to change their models of urban government. From being institutionalised in deeply rooted national and administrative practices they moved towards more market oriented regulation mechanisms, characterised by tighter spaces for political manoeuvre of the local decision makers. The decentralisation and externalisation processes set in motion, however, required cities to become more active actors in the governance of change and of its impacts. Different paths have been followed, from city marketing and management in a fragmented scenario on the one side, to the development of networks among cities and local partnerships among different actors (at different territorial levels) on the other side. These options, characterise the different modes of regulation existing at the local level, which becomes in itself a more and more relevant starting point of analysis.

 

From the social point of view, the above mentioned changes, together with new migration patterns and deep socio-demographic transformations, brought about in all cities an increased inequality and the spread of an increased risk of entering a condition of need. In some cities, however, this vulnerability turned into an increase of poverty (e.g. many British and most south European cities,…), while in others poverty rates have been kept down and tensions limited. From the spatial point of view the interplay of the above mentioned dimensions and the related transformation processes brought about similar pressures towards a homologation of non-lieux, segregation, gentrification and/or sub-urbanisation. The emerging patterns, however, are again diversified and – to a large extent – coherent with the different impacts briefly described. More divided and polarised cities vis-à-vis more socially integrated cities.

 

What is common to the trends outlined above is the underlying tension between the pressures for a homologation from the economic, political social and cultural point of view and the attempt to maintain the change of cities’ identity – as it emerged from their economic, political, cultural and social history – within socially acceptable limits. In other words it is a tension cities experience between converging changes and the maintenance of their own identities, between homologation and keeping different.

 

Investigating this tension in its multiple dimensions is the main focus of our research and training project.

 

 

1b. PROJECT OBJECTIVES

 

In order to adequately address its research and training topic, the UrbEUROPE network has the ambition to develop a meta-project, aimed at linking the outputs of recent and/or ongoing research in different disciplines involving the urban dimension of Europe. The flourishing of research projects and networks carrying out empirical fieldwork on European cities[2] signals the recognition of the crucial character of this dimension, even though, little effort has been devoted in building a solid interdisciplinary knowledge basis integrated with a highly structured training programme. Filling this gap is our main objective.

 

The establishment of this link will be organised around three main areas of analysis:

1. The analysis of how global changes and local impacts are conceptualised in theories and through which methods they are investigated;

2. The analysis of how changes impacted on the built environment (gentrification, sub-urbanization and segregation);

3. The analysis of how the changes impacted on the role of local social policies and governance.

The investigation of these three areas – highly interrelated one another – has the main goal of attaining a better understanding of the tension between identity and change in European Cities (the local-global link), of the existing differences and of the directions of change (the convergence-divergence hyphothesis). Each area of investigation, however, has specific objectives.

 

1.   The analysis of the ways in which global changes and local impacts are conceptualised and of the methods of empirical investigation 

 

All research projects in which the partners are or have been involved – implicitly or explicitly – refer to the local-global link, considering cities as social formations, both spatially and socially, with peculiar economic and cultural histories, which give rise to specific local systems. These local systems have peculiar social morphologies which are a result of their being part of a complex network of relations at different levels – from the local to the global – reacting in peculiar ways to exogenous and endogenous phenomena (constraints) and producing different impacts (e.g. in terms of vulnerability, poverty, ways of perceiving and addressing changes through innovative or traditional forms of governance,  …).

 

Within this frame, main objectives of this area of research are:

 

a)      to identify the terminology and the narratives used by the different disciplines to define the ongoing processes and to link different terms with the same meanings and articulate same terms used with different meanings;

b)      to disentangle the local-global link into its analytical dimensions as they have been treated by the different disciplines, theories, methods,…adopted within the recent and ongoing comparative research projects on urban Europe.

c)      to reach (on the basis of the recent and ongoing research) a new understanding of the nature of changes in European cities and of how different equilibria among regulating mechanisms (market exchange, redistribution and reciprocity) may affect specific inclusion and exclusion processes and governance impacts.

d)      to provide the different areas of analysis (see below) with a conceptual, theoretical and methodological sound basis to build upon and further develop their research and training activities.

e)      to identify the specific European features of the processes considered.

 

2.   The analysis of how changes impacted on the built environment (gentrification, sub-urbanization and segregation)

 

Despite the common nature of the transformation processes, impacts have differed considerably because local systems filtered these same processes in peculiar ways due to their socio-economic, cultural and political heritage. The recent and ongoing projects, however, focused only on specific issues of this filtering process without relating all processes together. Gentrification and sub-urbanisation are processes that contribute to produce segregation, again these differ, but differences seems to be coherent within themselves.

 

Main objectives of this area of research are:

 

a)      to assess how recent and current research tackle with the ways in which transformations in the different areas of regulation (market, state and family/community) translate into specific types of impacts on the built environment.

b)      to analyse – on the basis of the previous assessment – the ways in which economic and labour market change, political participation, changing welfare states and housing systems and changing household structures and social networks contribute to determine the different patterns of gentrification, sub-urbanisation and spatial segregation in different European cities.

c)      to verify the emerging patterns of gentrification, sub-urbanisation and segregation patterns in cities belonging to countries or models not considered by previous research (just two examples: 1) within the ESOPO project on local policies against poverty British cities were not included, but it may be crucial to consider them to contrast the performances of cities within a liberal model with other welfare models. However, British cities were included in URBEX; 2) Within URBEX no Scandinavian or east-European city has been included, however, it may be crucial to know which are the spatial patterns emerging from the transformation processes also in such welfare models. In ESOPO Scandinavian cities have been considered. Ad hoc research projects will be targeted to fill the gaps among these projects both in research design, methodologies, etc. by developing a common research frame).

d)      to analyse how the above mentioned patterns contribute to wider processes of spatially rooted social exclusion in European cities.

e)      more specifically, it will also analyse how the organization of the housing market, its structure in terms of the distribution of different tenure types, the access to these types, the formal and informal allocation mechanisms, and the spatial distribution of housing types, contribute to determine whether economic changes result in new concentrations of deprived households and will have important effects on social exclusion.

f)       to identify who are the actors involved in gentrification and sub-urbanisation processes and how these are increasing segregation. What is role of local cultures and of specific land and housing markets? What characterises them as specific European?

 

3.   The analysis of the role of local social policies and governance and how the changes impacted on it

 

Local social policies – as an expression of the mechanism of inclusion and exclusion at the very base of citizenship and governance mechanisms – are addressed almost in all recent and ongoing research projects we will consider. The transformations occurring (e.g. the tightening available resources, etc…) impact on the degrees of freedom local policy makers have in facing the effects of these transformations. In turn historically rooted practices influence the strategies developed and the directions taken.

 

Main objectives of this area of research are:

 

1. to analyse the results of recent and ongoing research in terms of interpretations of the emerging differences in local social policies and their success and failure on a comparative basis.

2. to built upon the emerging results to deepen the understanding of how different welfare arrangements (understood as local articulation of national welfare systems) mitigate the effects of economic restructuring, through their effects on employment opportunities, education, income distribution, social welfare and housing.

3. to understand and verify to what extent specific targeted local urban policies (e.g. development programmes, urban renewal projects, activation policies within social assistance schemes, …) have succeeded in promoting social inclusion and urban sustainability, changing the modes of urban governance.

4. to assess how spatial patterns of social exclusion (see results from the achievement of objective 2) should be taken into account in strategies to enhance social integration, combat exclusion and reduce unemployment

5. to produce a coherent analysis and interpretation of the main reasons for the differences - in terms of success and failure of local social policies - on a comparative basis.

6. to verify existing evaluation instruments all local social policies trying to develop a cross-country.

7. to identify the specific European elements of local policies compared to other models (e.g. American, Asian,…).

 

These three sets of objectives are not easy to achieve without considering thoroughly – as we have often stated – the results of recent and ongoing comparative research at the European level. Also relevant ongoing research at the local or national level will be considered if relevant to the achievement of the objectives of this RTN proposal.

 

To these objectives we have to add an additional and very innovative objective: we aim also at providing the visual support to the issues tackled in the different thematic areas. To give an example: when we will address issues of gentrification we will provide images from neighbourhoods of different European cities where this process is taking place. This support will be the result of the training activities taking place during the visual seminar

(see § 10 and also: http://shakti.uniurb.it/eurex/visual_lab/visual_lab.htm) and will involve most pre and post-doc fellows.

 

A joint research project on the issues at stake in this RTN proposal will be prepared by the partners of this consortium for the next (last) call within the IHP programme foreseen for Fall 2001. Additional resources targeted to research will boost the whole RTN activities.

 

 

2. SCIENTIFIC ORIGINALITY

 

UrbEUROPE aims at being a meta-project, mapping, integrating and updating outcomes of international and national research projects on urban-related issues in Europe, in view of verifying to which extent the distinctiveness of the European urban model (or better models or identities) is put under pressure by the ongoing global changes and in which directions.

 

For this reason, the scientific originality of the UrbEUROPE project is, to be found in its objectives and – primarily – in the ways foreseen to achieve them. In particular in:

1. the way in which its mapping, integrating and updating research activities will take place;

2. the multidisciplinary character underlying these activities;

3. its orientation towards the use of new technologies;

4. the multi-mediality of its outputs.

 

1)      A lot of research has been recently developed on urban issues (in which most of the partners of this RTN proposal were involved; see section § 5 and the appendix), but no work of systematic review has been done yet. This is surely due to increasing time constraints of the projects’ management and to the little room given to the discussions of research results. These may occur, but delayed in time and often confined within disciplinary boundaries. Breaking these boundaries is a fundamental step in order to shed new light on the results of these projects. In particular, the interpretation of the impacts of the occurring transformation processes will take advantage of linking these projects together. In this sense, the originality of this project lies in the fact that research results of projects aimed to address very specific questions (like urban segregation processes or urban governance challenges just to make a few examples) will be put within a wider context of reference characterised by the background given in section §1a and 1b, discussing them from different disciplinary points of view (see next paragraph) and using them instrumentally to assess the processes of change investing European cities and to develop further research on these topics with an integrated approach. The research developed – on that knowledge base – will be complementary and characterised by small scale comparative projects designed ad hoc and involving the pre-and post-doc fellows funded through the RTN programme as well as through other means. From this point of view, the network is crucial also for training purposes. In fact, participants will take particular advantage being involved in small projects embedded into a much wider frame of reference.

 

2)   Complementing and/or updating recent results or widening ongoing research with small scale ad hoc designed research projects – as it has been described in the previous paragraph and it is foreseen by our project – will rely on a strong multidisciplinary approach. Urban issues are an ideal topic for these kind of approaches, because they present an increasing complexity, which requires a multitude of perspectives in order to be adequately understood. The partners of the network have come together precisely because they work in different, but complementary, fields (being sociologists, urban planners, geographers, architects, political scientists,…) and because they perceived the need to reciprocally contaminate. Under this respect the training programme (summer school, thematic workshops, online seminar, …) is a further opportunity to access findings and/or ongoing research by including colleagues who are involved in other projects (se the design of the EUREX seminar as the model for that). Willingness to contribute to our project, acting as external tutors or allowing access to data, has been already expressed by many of them.

 

3)   The wide use of new technologies represents a highly qualifying point of the UrbEUROPE research and training project. The use of new technologies will concern in particular two aspects:

a.       the visual research, that will be transversal to the three identified thematic areas integrating them through its specific perspective during the whole development of the project. Visual technologies are gaining more and more attention in the social sciences, but their systematic and integrated use to accompany theoretical and empirical research is still a limited experience. Within our project, visual tutors, photographers and other experts will work in team with the researchers (both junior – e.g. the fellows – and senior ones), in order to:

·         translate into visual material the research material and the research findings;

·         improve the complex comprehension of phenomena adding a new perspective to the ones already available thanks to the multi-disciplinary character of the project.

A visual seminar will run parallel to the Eurex on-line seminar, so that fellows and scholars will be accompanied in the process of getting familiar with the new instruments. Visual laboratories or visual analysis tradition are available at UNIMIB, LSE and UNIURB, which will provide the participating fellows with the relevant training (e.g. also during the summers school with an ad hoc session). Similar experiences are already being tested in the three universities. The presence of visual experts and tutors will be of fundamental importance in order to guarantee the production of useful and comparable material, useful for research and training activities.

b.       the training programme, first of all through the Eurex online seminar (see section § 10 for more details), representing the basic training structure, which will be common to all fellows, and will provide them with basic competences regarding all the three areas already identified (see section 1.b) from a multidisciplinary perspective. The online seminar allows an extensive scientific exchange among students and scholars, disregard the spatial distances, on the most recent research findings or issues. It will also represent a link for the network’s members, both fellows and senior researchers, creating a sort of virtual research community, namely through an ad hoc forum, which will be set-up in the UrbEUROPE web site. The Eurex on-line seminar has already been developed on an experimental basis (currently in its second year); within the UrbEUROPE project it will be further expanded and institutionalised as a training tool of major importance.

 

4)   The use of new technologies also involves a multi-medial character of research and training tools as well as outputs and deliverables. The scientific originality of UrbEUROPE lies also in a large production of multi-medial supports for the dissemination of research results, which, in their turn, will form the basis for the training activities in the close future (we expect effects also outside of the network’s activities). This means that fellows will not only get familiar with such tools for their training experiences, but, participating in their production under the supervision of the visual tutors, they will also acquire very advanced skills in the use of new technologies, which will notably enrich their personal curricula, putting them in the forefront of such competences.

 

 

3. RESEARCH METHODS

 

Being a meta-project, UrbEUROPE basis its research activities and the methods to be used on a preliminary mapping phase (see the work plan in § 4). This phase includes also the mapping of the methods adopted within the projects relevant to our topic. Being the aim of UrbEUROPE to develop complementary and additional research to better understand the distinctiveness of the transformation processes investing European cities, the concrete research projects which will be carried out will adopt multiple research methods. Complementary research, in fact, implies – from the methodological point of view (among other things) – the adoption of different methods to study the same issue or to use the same methods to study different contexts. This process aims at developing an integrated methodological approach which should link the results of different experiences, stemming from different scientific disciplines. This involves the use of a wide set of different scientific methods, which will be coordinated within UrbEUROPE in a complex way in order to get to a deeper comprehension of the urban issues at stake. We have already outlined the main thematic areas into which the project will be divided. Although the specific objectives vary for each of these areas, it is possible to outline a common set of scientific research methods, which will then be adapted to the small scale ad hoc designed research projects to be carried out.

 

The mapping exercise carried out in the first phases (see work plan and respective gantt chart § 4) by the different research teams will provide the sound basis for identifying also the methodological tools necessary to acquire complementary information to the already existing knowledge base. Particular attention will be devoted to the link between the different methods adopted within the single projects and the obtained results. The underlying question is “by using different methods we could have attained different results?” Our aim is to carefully assess this question on the basis of the multidisciplinary competences available within the network identifying what is needed to attain our objectives. An ad hoc syllabus of the Summer school as well as of a thematic workshop and one conference will be devoted to clarify these issues.

 

On the basis of the methodological mapping developed, also the methodological design of the complementary research activities will be prepared. As it has been already mentioned, this will be done:

a)      Designing case-studies that were not considered within the projects upon which we base our research activities. These will represent a concrete added value to the results attained within those projects Case studies will be selected considering their belonging to a different welfare model, socio-economic context, geographical area of those already covered by the projects considered;

b)      Studying the same cases from a different disciplinary and methodological point of view. For instance some projects focussing on local policies did not include British cities others did, but focussing only on very specific aspects (e.g. urban segregation). In this case we will integrate the already attained results, trying to fill the existing gaps of information. (in the work plan § 4 we provide some examples of how this should take place). This will permit a concrete integration between projects avoiding overlapping and focussing only on those aspects relevant to UrbEUROPE.

 

	Thematic areas	Main partners involved	Research methodologies (examples)	Recent and/or ongoing projects (examples)
1	Global changes, local impacts: theories and concepts.	UNIMIB, LSE, UNIURB UvA	·                  Comparative institutional analysis; ·                  Secondary analysis of process produced data (from administrative archives); ·                  Access to surveys or systematic databases (e.g. OECD).	·                  UGIS, ·                  SOCASST WP1; ·                  URBEX WP 1-2; ·                  MIGCITIES; ·                  FRINGES ·                  ESOPO
2	Impacts of changes on the built environment.	Humboldt, UvA, UH.DSP.	·                  Secondary analysis of process produced data; ·                  Qualitative analysis: in-depth interviews to experts or specific target groups; ·                  Access to ongoing surveys; ·                  Longitudinal studies; ·                  GIS data-bases.	·                  URBEX; ·                  City of Tomorrow; ·                  URSPIC; ·                  ESOPO, SALSA (SOCASST) ·                  Local development strategies in economically disintegrated areas
3	Impacts on and role of local policies and governance issues.	UNIURB, F.N.S.P., UNIMIB.	·                  Comparative institutional analysis; ·                  Secondary analysis of process produced data; ·                  Qualitative analysis: in-depth interviews to experts and specific target groups; ·                  Access to ongoing surveys; ·                  Longitudinal studies	·                  ESOPO; ·                  SOCASST; ·                  UGIS; ·                  COST CIVITAS; ·                  Gouvernance des économies locales et régionales en Europe; ·                  Integrated approaches to active welfare (local activation policies)
4	Visual multi-disciplinary dimension: images and cultures of cities.	UNIMIB, UNIURB, LSE.	Specific visual methodologies and devices (urban transphotography, iconographical research, video,.…)	·                  UNIMIB visual lab, ·                  EUREX visual seminar
N.B. For a brief description of the projects’ contents see the partners’ sheets provided in § 5.

 

 

The integration and development of existing research will be done through the creation of ad hoc research teams, which in some cases will be internal to one partner’s institution, while in other cases will involve other partners. Partners will follow small scale ad hoc projects autonomously or joining broader projects accordingly to their own area of thematic specialization (see § 5). In all cases, pre and post-doc fellows will be integrated in the research teams and will carry out the research work together with the other researches involved funded by other sources, thus being trained on the job. Fellows will join the research teams accordingly to their own area of interest. A typical example would be the fellows carrying out one or more case studies within a network’s research project. Experts from outside the network will be invited for counselling and/or supervise small scale projects carried out on the premises of the projects they have been involved in. They will also be invited to lecture within the UrbEUROPE training programme. In some cases, it might be advisable that fellows’ tutors have experience in the projects which the fellows will be updating or extending (see § 10).

 

The comparative dimension is highly qualifying, therefore fellows’ comparative projects, coherent with the overall UrbEUROPE project, will be strongly supported.

 

In order to up-date and extend the existing research, both quantitative and qualitative analysis will be developed, according to the methodologies adopted within the previous research projects. In concrete terms, several different methodologies will be used, namely:

• Comparative institutional analysis;

• Analysis and evaluation of social policies and governance patterns;

• Analysis of welfare reforms and evaluation of policy testing phases (e.g. RMI in Italy; WG2 within Cost A15);

• Secondary analysis of process produced data;

• Qualitative analysis: in-depth interviews to experts;

• Access to ongoing surveys;

• Access to existing data-bases (OECD);

• Longitudinal studies (e.g. ESOPO, SALSA);

• Extension/updating of longitudinal data-bases;

• Access to GIS data-bases;

• Visual methodologies and devices.

Within each specific research project which will be developed within the UrbEUROPE network, an ad hoc methodological framework and research work plan will be agreed upon by the participating members.

 

 

 

 

4. WORKPLAN

 

The UrbEUROPE project will be developed during 48 months starting from the signature of the contract. In this section we outline the work plan of the network’s research project, for what concerns the training structure and timing, please refer to section § 10. For what concerns the networking activities, please refer to section § 7.

 

In order to achieve the objectives outlined in section § 1b, the research activities will be articulated into two main steps:

1)      mapping of recent and ongoing comparative research projects on urban issues involving European cities and carried out from different disciplinary perspectives;

2)      outlining complementary research to the recent and ongoing comparative research projects which emerged to be crucial from the mapping exercise;

The second step will be further broken-down into two sub-steps

a)      updating comparative research results, in order to verify the most recent trends and the eventual changes or shifts from the findings of older projects;

b)      developing additional comparative research, on the basis of the results of previous and ongoing projects;

 

The four steps (two main and two sub-steps) will be followed for each thematic areas identified in section § 1.b. Yet, the timing will slightly differ in the sense that the same steps relating to the first thematic area will be started and developed first, as they will provide a conceptual and contextual framework for the other two areas, which will then run in parallel (see below) afterwards. The visual activities relating to the fourth thematic area will accompany the research activities in the three areas as well as the training events throughout the whole projects’ duration. Assessing of results of visual activities will follow the same timing as the other areas (month 12, 24, 36 and 48).

 

1) First step: Mapping up-to-date urban-related research in Europe (concepts, methods and findings)

 

Timing of research activities

Thematic area 1: months 3-17

Thematic areas 2 and 3: months 6-24

 

Events and timing

            Management committee’s meetings: at months 2, 9, 15, 21 and 27

            Thematic workshops: at months 9, 18 and 27

International colloquia: at months 15 and 27

WPs’ publication: at months (indicatively) 7, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28

Books, CD-roms, other publications: at month (indicatively) 24

            Reporting: months 12 and 24 (mid-term review)

 

Goals to be achieved

The first step will aim at mapping how the most recent and ongoing comparative projects identify and analyse common and diverging trends (see section § 1b for more specific objectives) in the different European cities, focussing on the urban impacts of global socio-economic trends. In particular we aim at disentangling the analytical elements of theories and concepts (both implicit and explicit) as well as the methodologies adopted and the research results obtained.

Sources of information will be: a) the projects, b) the research reports, c) the papers delivered at conferences by the participants in the projects, d) the scientific publications, e) the documents collected so far by the projects (agreements have yet to be taken with the projects coordinators, however, most of the participants of this network are involved in those projects).

This mapping will enable us to highlight – from an interdisciplinary point of view – scarcely explored issues, as well as cities and geographical areas excluded from the analysis.

 

2) Second step: outlining complementary research to the recent and ongoing comparative research projects which emerged to be crucial from the mapping exercise;

 

Timing of research activities

            Thematic area 1: months 8-32

            Thematic areas 2 and 3: months 11-36

 

Events and timing

Management committee’s meetings: 9, 15, 21, 27, 33

Thematic workshops: months 9, 18 and 27

International Colloquia: months 15 and 27

WPs’ publication: months (indicatively) 12, 16, 20, 24,28, 32 and 36

Books, CD-roms, other publications: month (indicatively) 24

Reporting: months 12, 24 (mid-term review) and 36

 

Goals to be achieved

The second step will aim at establishing interpretative links between the outputs of different projects from a wider and interdisciplinary discourse. These interpretations together with the mapping activities carried out in step one will guide the teams in developing specifically tailored research activities which should complement the research activities occurred and ongoing.

 

a) Second step. First sub-step: Up-dating of recent research outputs

 

Timing of research activities

Thematic area 1: months 13-45

Thematic areas 2 and 3: months 13-45

 

Events and timing

Management committee’s meetings: months 21, 27, 33, 39, 42

Thematic workshops: months 18, 27, 36

International Colloquia: months 27, 39 and 48

WPs’ publication: months (indicatively) 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48

Books, CD-roms, other publications: months (indicatively) 24 and 48

Reporting: months 24 (mid-term review), 36 and 48 (final report)

 

Goals to be achieved

The first sub-step of the second step, aims at updating the results of the mapped projects, which emerged as the most interesting during the first two steps, either because they considered particularly crucial issues or socio-geographical contexts. The update of research results will occur, for instance, carrying out additional data collection, further case studies in different cities or in the same cities but from a different perspective (both in terms of disciplinary approach, methodologies, …). This can partly be considered a follow-up monitoring activity, aiming to highlight coherence or shifts from the previously assessed results. This will be done under the consultancy and/or the supervision of co-ordinators or senior researchers formerly involved in those projects. If these are not members of the network, they will be invited to join as guests to the UrbEUROPE training activities (see the Training Programme in section § 10).

 

b) Second step. Second sub-step: developing additional comparative research, on the basis of the results of previous and ongoing projects

 

Timing of research activities

            Thematic area 1: months 13-45

            Thematic areas 2 and 3: months 13-45

 

Events and timing

            Management committee’s meetings: months 21, 27, 33, 39, 42

            Thematic workshops: months 18, 27, 36

            International Colloquia: months 27, 39 and 48

WPs’ publication: months (indicatively) 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48

Books, CD-roms, other publications: months (indicatively) 24 and 48

Reporting: months 24 (mid-term review), 36 and 48 (final report)

 

Goals to be achieved

During the second sub-step of the second step additional and complementary research will be carried out, building on the state of the art emerging from the achievement of the first two steps in view of filling the gaps identified in those steps. It is these research activities which will involve to large extent the pre- and post-doc fellows funded within the UrbEUROPE project. Two main directions of research will be followed:

1. using similar research methodologies in different urban contexts (and/or in different countries) which were originally not included in the research projects. Contexts may differ on the basis of some major features, i.e: the welfare regime of reference (e.g. liberal/social-democratic/conservative), or the economic vocation (industrial/service sector/…), and so on (depending on the results of the mapping exercise);

2. using different disciplinary approaches and methodologies on cities and countries which were already objects of previous research projects (e.g. sociological, geographical, architectural, urban planning, economical, juridical, …).

 

Steps integration

Two examples considering concrete projects within which some partners of the UrbEUROPE partnership have been involved may clarify the way we intend to proceed:

·         First example. Within the ESOPO project (funded by DG Research first Tser call) on local policies against poverty British cities were not included. But it may be crucial to consider them to evaluate how social assistance schemes performed in alleviating (or not) the impact of changes on low income families. Also the SocAsst Projec (funded by DG Employment) on social assistance schemes in Europe did not consider the British social assistance system. These gaps[3] - from our perspective – require additional research on how cities within a liberal model (namely the UK) succeeded or not in dealing with the problem. British cities, however, were included (for example) in the URBEX project on urban segregation and on how the transformation processes impacted on the built environment. Within the UrbEUROPE consortium an ad hoc tailored project may link the outputs of these (and others) projects and identify the need of only few additional information to have the broader picture of the impact of the transformation processes. The partners from all these projects are involved in the UrbEUROPE project and the management of the additional research to be carried out should be easy and partners also from the other networks can be involved for short term tutoring during the comparative research. A joint research design will be developed and the pre- and/or post-doc fellows will be involved in carrying out the case studies (or whatever will be decided on the basis of the mapping.

·         Second Example. Within the URBEX project (see above) no Scandinavian or east-European city has been included, however, it may be crucial to know which are the spatial patterns emerging from the transformation processes also in such welfare models. In ESOPO Scandinavian cities have been considered, also in other research carried out mainly at Humboldt and at Helsinki University. Ad hoc research projects will be targeted to fill the gaps emerging during the first step (mapping of research methods and findings) among these projects both in research design, methodologies, etc. by developing a common research frame and including some cities from these countries.

Similar ways to proceed (here sketched out only very synthetically) will be developed within the thematic areas identified.

 

Within this frame, the comparative analysis will be favoured by:

a)      the circulation of information and research findings among the pre and post-doc fellows and the scholars and researchers of the different sites of the network, to put the local and national research findings in an international (primarily European) context;

b)      the common project design and the international research activity which will adopt shared methodologies and objectives. Additional research may involve use of specific methodologies in other contexts, acquisition of additional data, update of data, systematic data analysis from existing databases but addressing other issues, etc.

 

 

Involvement of the partners

The network’s partners will take part to all the research areas, even though their main contribution will be based on the specific thematic areas in which they are mostly specialised, as it is shown in the following table. Larger institutions are able to cover most areas.

 

 

 

The following table summarizes the person-months and the individual number of fellows and junior and senior researchers who are likely to participate to the UrbEUROPE project in the different member sites. These figures are to be intended as indicative, and are based on the number of Ph.D. candidates, post-doc researchers, senior researchers and professors who work in the respective departments on the issues addressed by the UrbEUROPE proposal.