Annual Conference CritiqueAuthor(s): Alan JenkinsSource: Area, Vol. 11, No. 2 (1979), pp. 174-175Published by: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20000053 .

Accessed: 21/06/2014 18:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Area.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:22:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

174 Observations

the following: (1) To promote, through a variety of means (journals, books, evening classes, lectures, and the media) greater awareness of the nature, location and importance of historic landscapes, and the urgent need to systematically survey and conserve them in a necessarily changing countryside; (2) To engage in and help co-ordinate research on the identification, recording and interpreta tion of historic landscapes; (3) To help develop and standardize survey techniques whereby meaningful comparisons can be made between data gathered in different areas; (4) To foster working relationships between academics, planners, local volun teers, teachers and farmers as a basis for a

more positive contribution by these varied interests to the management of historic landscapes.

The group will specialize in the human elements of the landscape. The immediate objective is the preparation of a Hand book. This will draw on the survey experience of several members of the group and other specialists, and is an attempt to produce a standard guide for both local volunteer groups and profes sionals in this area of landscape studies. Further particulars may be obtained from the Secretary, Historic Landscapes Steer ing Group, Department of Geography,

The Polytechnic of North London, The Marlborough Building, 383 Holloway Road, London N7 ORN.

Polytechnic of North London

Annual Conference critique Alan Jenkins writes: Any academic profession, as it is largely comprised of teachers, should be con cerned with effective communication, and as geographers we should ensure that our research findings and opinions are presen ted with maximum clarity. Far too many sessions at the IBG Annual Conference at

Manchester were notable mainly for their poor organization and the failure of speakers to communicate with their audience.

Admittedly aspects of the physical setting did not aid matters. Some of the rooms simulated inside the arctic condi tions prevailing outside, while others

were hot and stuffy and encouraged many of the audience to sleep off the previous night's drinking. Moreover, the sessions were invariably held in tiered lecture theatres, suitable no doubt for a one way transmission of knowledge, but hardly conducive to the exchange of views that

many sessions were supposed to achieve. Though physical settings can facilitate

communication, this largely depends upon careful organization and the good sense of those speaking. Too many sessions were stuffed so full that speakers came and went with the speed and effectiveness of English batsmen facing Lillee and Thomp son. Some chairmen allowed speakers to overrun their allotted time, curtailing the time available to other speakers and for general discussion. (One speaker who had travelled at his own expense a distance of

5000 miles suddenly found his time cut from 20 to 10 minutes.) The two (or was it three?) sessions on ' The future of the city' were heralded by an announcement that there would be general discussion of

the views of Brian Berry et al. Yet despite overrunning the generous time allotted for these sessions, there was space for but one question and no time for general discussion. Surely an issue of this importance demanded clarification of the views already presented and an oppor tunity for other viewpoints to be heard.

Far too many speakers gave papers (a revealing word) possibly suitable for reading in a journal but certainly not easily assimilated when delivered orally. Some speakers, realizing that their time was limited, considered that the answer was to speak twice the normal speed, while others presented us with upside down, incorrectly ordered or illegible slides.

Admittedly, this is a partial view of the conference and certainly the session I attended organized by the Quantitative

Methods Study Group was a model of careful organization and clear exposition. But if these views are at all representative and/or fair comment, the obvious ques tion is what should be done?

If we want productive formal sessions one answer would be simply to follow the very clear directions that are issued to all

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:22:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Observations 175

session conveners and chairmen. Alterna tively, we could further experiment with alternative forms of organization such as

workshop or poster sessions. Otherwise why not admit that, at present, the formal sessions are simply a charade and what really count are the informal discussions in the bar and over coffee? If this is so,

then should we not be more honest (and more effective), hold the conference at Butlin's, dispense with the formal sessions and simply ensure that the bar is always open and well-stocked?

Oxford Polytechnic

Population policies and the geographer

A report of a residential conference of the IBG Population Geography Study Group at Collingwood College, University of Durham, 20-22 September 1978.

About 40 members found the conference size and excellent residential facilities at Durham conducive to active discussion, although the theme of population policies remained an elusive one, not least because of lack of goal specification in many implicit national policies.

The first session focused attention on population trends and policies of considerable current interest and controversy in Tanzania and Rhodesia. Ian Thomas (East Anglia) set the tone of conference discussion by carefully approaching Population policy in Tanzania through consideration of the emerging components of an implicit policy in a socialist African country with low population density. Discussion centred on the dramatic redistribution of population promoted by the government's 'villagization' policy, the scale of which clearly surprised many members. The mechanics and impact of redistribution were actively discussed, although the basic causes attracted sur prisingly little attention. Adam Paine (East Anglia) described an algorithm method of Village viability assessment in Tanzania, with viability being conceived in terms of land and other resources available to support, in largely subsistence economies, actual and projected village populations. Discussion focused on the somewhat crude nature of the accounting scheme, which was defended on the basis of its ready application in often difficult monitoring situations. Finally, George Kay (N. Staffs) presented a paper, Towards a population policy for Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, which set current population problems in their essential historical and political context and which attempted an evaluation of possible future strategies for a country whose natural increase rate is currently some 3-5 % p.a. Discussion was somewhat muted by the expectation of events in that country which will doubtless have considerable demographic consequences.

The second day was devoted to European and, indeed, largely British topics. John Murray (Council of Europe) provided the essential context in his paper, Population policies in Europe, with his review of government and political group attitudes to national population trends and structures. The move from general to particular was made by Russell King (Leicester) in his paper Post-war migration policies in Malta, with special reference to return migration. Although this island has acted as a productive demographic laboratory for several UK population geographers, the process of return migration there and elsewhere has been badly under-researched; yet it is clearly of great topical interest, given the unfavourable employment position in many traditional immigration countries.

John Salt (London), in his paper Labour migration policies in Great Britain (co authored by J. H. Johnson), drew distinctions between formal state policies, on the one hand, and those of private organizations and nationalized industries, on the other, towards stimulating and supporting labour migration. Discussion focused on the

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.113 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 18:22:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions