Issues of Difference and Diversity in Planning Education: A survey of current Australian and New Zealand practice

Ludmilla Kwitko and Susan Thompson

ABSTRACT

This paper discusses the results of a survey to determine the extent to which diversity issues are included in the curriculum of Australian and New Zealand planning schools.  The research is set in the context of a growing literature in urban studies and planning on multiculturalism, difference and diversity, as well as a series of interactive discussion forums at several meetings of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Planning Schools.  Responses to the survey revealed a variety of innovative teaching techniques being used to enhance understandings of diversity in both postgraduate and undergraduate courses.  Successes and failures in raising levels of awareness of diversity were outlined.  The issue of resource constraints is particularly vexing as low cost teaching methods were perceived to be the least effective in communicating diversity sensitivity to students.  The paper concludes by considering the challenges that currently confront planning academics in the delivery of culturally sensitive and inclusive education.

KEY WORDS

Difference; diversity; multiculturalism; pedagogical challenges; planning curriculum; reflexive educational practice; resource constraints

INTRODUCTION

“…diversity is the empirical reality that we must explore for the sake of our scholarship” (Lee, 1997: 263)

In this paper we report the findings of a survey of the ways that Australian and New Zealand planning academics teach students about issues of difference and diversity.  The research emerges from our long-term interest in both theoretical and practice issues to do with inclusive education in a globalised, postmodern world.  Given our experience as planning educators and researchers committed to the notion of the culturally inclusive classroom and curricula, we are acutely mindful of the fact that these are sensitive issues.  They reach beyond intellectual and academic understandings, into the realm of personal and emotional experiences. 

Accordingly, the aim of the project is not to accuse anyone of bias but rather, to share existing knowledge and experiences of curriculum innovation and the introduction of diversity issues  (McDowell, 1992: 186).  We also acknowledge that while our focus is planning education and those involved in its delivery, this project needs to reach beyond academia to eventually bring about cultural understandings in the profession.  We believe that this is an opportunity for planners, both practitioners and educators, to reflect on issues of diversity and difference and how the profession can appropriately respond.

Central research questions

We have identified three central research questions for this paper:

·         Are planning educators teaching students about issues of difference and diversity? 

·         Should they?  How should they be doing this?

·         Whether they do or they don’t, what are the implications for planning practice and the profession?

In addressing these questions, the paper sets the broad context for the study by examining theoretical literature in urban studies and planning which relates to understandings of multiculturalism and inclusive planning practice.  We also discuss the pedagogical literature that focuses on bringing an awareness of difference and diversity into the classroom and curricula.

The background of the research project is outlined, including the specifics of our methodology and findings.  We conclude the paper by reflecting on a ‘dichotomy of acceptance’ of inclusive planning education, pedagogical challenges and the broader socio-political context in which we currently work.

PERSONAL STATEMENTS: WHO ARE WE?

It is important that we state who we are and where we come from.  We write from both an academic and practice position.  Our own backgrounds reflect the difference and diversity of two middle class, able bodied, white women who live and work in the country of their birth.  Ludmilla is a daughter of Eastern European migrants, whereas Susan’s heritage is Anglo-celtic.  While both of us have travelled overseas, Ludmilla has lived and worked in Asia and the US.  We are committed to bringing about greater awareness of diversity issues in planning education and practice.

CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

There are four key issues which provide the contextual impetus for the current work.  These are the theoretical literature on multiculturalism, difference and the city; the literature on responsive planning practice; changes in pedagogy which reflect difference and diversity in the classroom and the need to write curricula which acknowledge multiple voices and realities; and finally, the interactive context in which issues of concern for planning educators from Australia and New Zealand were raised.

Theoretical context: diversity and the city

There is a burgeoning literature in urban studies and planning which addresses the issues of multiculturalism and diversity.  This influences the ways in which some educators are incorporating diversity awareness in planning education.

We have identified three major themes in this literature.  Firstly, the literature explores postmodern theory and the ways in which it is hearing the hitherto hidden voices of marginalised groups, revealing a complex and diverse community (see for example, Sandercock, 1998a).  This newly acknowledged community includes differences of race, class, gender, disability, sexuality and their intersections.  The literature examines the impact of this new demographic awareness on urban form.  Sandercock (1998) invites debate and discussion on an alternative approach to planning which acknowledges that global economic restructuring has been overly privileged in planning discourse.  Accordingly, there is a need to incorporate global socio-cultural processes of change.  These encompass the age of migration - multicultural citizenship; the age of postcolonialism – the reclaiming of land by indigenous people; and the rise of civil society – the age of minorities.  Sandercock asserts that these processes have had a huge impact on our cities which cannot be ignored.  Other researchers agree and provide different insights into the multiple city, its constituents, their needs and the imperative for appropriate planning responses (see for example, Dunn, 1999; Fincher and Jacobs, 1998; Qadeer, 1997; Thompson, 2000).

It is also argued in the literature that modernist planning approaches fail to deal with this newly acknowledged multiple landscape.  Fincher (1998) asks some key questions in relation to planning’s ability to respond to difference and the global processes that are shaping cities today.  How can diversity be accepted and incorporated into a practice that is equitable and willing to accommodate different ways of dwelling in urban space?  Further, how does local government respond to a diverse community, ensuring that all services and processes are accessible by all?  The response is mixed, with some excellent examples of inclusive, democratic processes, but other instances where intolerance of difference is ignored and practices of inclusive democracy shunned (Thompson et al, 1998).  Sandercock (1998) asserts that if planning does not respond to different ways of being in the world, it will become increasingly irrelevant to contemporary society.

Theoretical context: planning practice

Reinforcing the need for radical changes in current planning practice, authors such as Healey (1997) and Forrester (1999) argue for markedly different approaches.  They suggest ways to move towards a responsive and inclusive policy/practice which acknowledges and works with the new global forces impacting on local areas.  Given the ever increasing conflicting and disparate interests of local communities, planners have not ‘caught up’ as it were with the different nature of contemporary stakeholders.  Not only are the stakeholders different to those traditionally identified in planning disputes and decision making, they have a wide range of needs in terms of appropriate consultative mechanisms.  It is no longer adequate, if it ever was, to declare that a large public meeting meets consultation requirements. Collaborative and consensus building practices which acknowledge varying levels of access to power and different ways of knowing and understanding have to form the cornerstone of this new planning practice.

In terms of the practicalities of working in pluralistic communities, Blackwell (1994) shows how accessible and equitable approaches can be developed by local councils.  While her focus is inclusive communication strategies for people from non-English speaking backgrounds, the many ideas she proposes can be used across other layers of difference such as class, gender, disability and sexual preference.

Local government’s responsiveness to difference and diversity in its communities has been the subject of a growing body of research (see for example Edgington et al, forthcoming; Thompson et al, 1998; Sandercock and Kliger, 1997; Watson and McGiilivray, 1995).  One review of Australian local government’s responsiveness to multicultural and indigenous community needs revealed some good examples of inclusive policy and practice, as well as some disturbing attitudes (Thompson et al, 1998).  This was most concerning in relation to localities where inter-ethnic discord had been experienced and had either been ignored or very little action taken.   

Theoretical context: pedagogy in planning and related education

Given the global context of tertiary education today and ever-increasing multicultural student populations, there is a great deal of interest in developing culturally inclusive and sensitive teaching practices and curricula across all academic disciplines.

Discussions about classroom practices range from suggestions for how teachers can draw on the disparate experiences, knowledges and world views of students from different ethnic backgrounds (Berry, 1997) to practice manuals on creating inclusive classrooms (see for example, Sinclair and Britton Wilson, 1999).

Practical, how-to-do-it manuals for developing inclusive curricula are also being produced (see for example Hutchinson et al, 1997; Moxham and Roberts, 1995; Sinclair, 1995).  To support these initiatives, academics are sharing their experiences of incorporating diversity awareness into curricula (see for example McConnell, 1997; Corey, 1997).  Looye and Sesay (1998) discuss a department wide attempt to re-design the planning program to be culturally inclusive.  They started from the premise that “…the curriculum of many planning schools remains weak on issues of race, gender and diversity.  Changes within the student body and the society for which they [planners] will work dictate curriculum changes that sustain planning for the public interest and involve all individuals and groups within society” (page 161).  The methodology used by Looye and Sesay is outlined so that other planning academics can apply the process to their own situations.   

The literature debates some of the difficulties bringing diversity awareness into both curricula and classroom practices.  Some see the changes as threatening the traditional notion of a “value free” education and bowing to the disciples of “political correctness” (Lee, 1997: 263).  Multicultural education has also been challenged on the basis that it “promotes social change on behalf of minority groups” (Lee, 1997: 263).  Indeed a planning field project in East St Louis was used to combat racism through reflective praxis and experiential learning (Reardon, 1998).

Practical context: interactive reflection with planning educators

Our interests in researching difference and diversity in planning education in Australia and New Zealand evolved from the literature discussed above and our experiences as planning academics working in Australian universities.  We both teach specialist courses, as well as those in the main stream, in which we integrate diversity issues.  We continually try to develop culturally inclusive classroom practices drawing on the multicultural experiences of our students, encouraging discussion and reflection, and exposing students to a wide variety of view points and field situations.  We have also been involved in researching multiculturalism and diversity in different guises.

Specifically, our survey of Australian and New Zealand planning academics emerged out of a workshop presentation to the Australian and New Zealand Association of Planning Schools (ANZAPS).  Building on a previous presentation entitled “Gender & Diversity in Planning Curriculum & Practice” (Allison et al, 1997) we defined the following objectives for our presentation to the 1997 ANZAPS.

·       To follow up from previous ANZAPS discussion on difference and diversity

·       To develop practical outcomes for academics to implement

·       To develop guidelines for culturally inclusive curricula and classroom practices

After considerable discussion, the workshop identified different issues related to diversity.  These included the following concepts:

difference; the “other”; values; polarity; gender; depends on context/situation; relevance to personal experience; personal filters; race; class; education; age; ethnicity; culture; physical ability; sexuality; power; access; opportunity

Workshop participants also considered issues associated with language use, curriculum design (both content & methodologies), classroom interaction and assessment.

A set of key questions also emerged from the 1997 ANZAPS workshop.

·       How do teachers incorporate diversity into their courses and classroom practices?

·       How can teachers deal with cultural pluralism?

·       How can teachers deal with inter-subjective differences?

·       How do we translate this into praxis?

·       What about structural/institutional issues?

·       What kinds of key understandings do we need to develop to address diversity issues?

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

Following on from the discussion at the 1997 ANZAPS Meeting and given the level of interest generated from the workshop, we devised a questionnaire to investigate awareness of difference and diversity in planning curricula across Australia and New Zealand.  We sent the survey form to all 19 planning schools/departments existing at the time in New Zealand (four schools) and Australia (15 schools).  The questionnaire was sent by mail as well as communicated via electronic mode.  A letter to the head of the relevant department/school accompanied the questionnaire, requesting that the survey be distributed to all academics teaching in the planning program.  We also investigated the possibility of working with the Royal Australian and New Zealand Planning Institutes to develop practice guidelines (as per our presentation objectives to the 1997 ANZAPS Meeting, and endorsed by participants) but this has not eventuated.  Given the continued interest in this topic at the 2000 ANZAPS Meeting, the need for practical assistance is still great and should be addressed.

The research data was collected between the end of 1997 and mid 1998.  The survey comprised of two parts as follows:

Questionnaire

We asked about:

·       Teaching areas

·       Understandings of diversity

·       Information about courses which incorporate diversity

Course outline data

We sought information from respondents about individual subjects taught asking for the following details:

·       Level of study

·   Field of planning education

·   Teaching mode and assessment

·   Aspects of diversity covered

·   How is awareness raised?

·       Set readings; theoretical discussions; practical examples; class discussion; field trips; professional / community speakers; other modes?

· Effectiveness in raising diversity issues

· Difficulties in raising diversity issues

· Successes in raising diversity issues

FINDINGS

Survey Responses

We received 13 individual responses to our survey, coming from 10 planning schools, representing eight Australian and two New Zealand schools.  As confidentiality was assured to survey participants, we cannot give details of which schools responded.  Accordingly, all quotes in this paper are cited anonymously.

Understandings of diversity

“…planners cannot plan for the whole community unless they have a sound understanding of the diversity within communities…   People belong to many communities – some overlapping, some not, and some which may actually be in conflict” (Survey Respondent)

“There are other areas of diversity and difference that may be more crucial in particular areas: culture, education, professional affiliation, cognitive style, world view, sexuality, region, family background, age, religious practice, ecosystem and disabilities come to mind…” (Forsyth, 1995: 60).

The survey respondents revealed rich and varied understandings of diversity.  These acknowledge the complex nature of the issue, recognising that understandings encompass much more than an intellectual knowing, and incorporate personal and lived experiences.  It was also suggested that self-reflective practice is needed to identify individual biases and stereotypes.

The following major themes were identified by respondents in articulating their understandings of diversity.

·       Community is made up of multiple, intersecting & disparate groups, sometimes in conflict

·       Difference and diversity exist within seemingly “homogenous” groups (caution against stereotyping)

·       Notions of diversity include class, ethnicity, age, gender, race, language, religion, indigenous/non-indigenous, difference over time, sexual preference, physical ability, culture, tradition, income groups

·       Relationship between diversity and power, disadvantage and privilege, winners and losers in the planning process

·       Need to see the world through the eyes of others

“Diversity cannot be separated from power within society and disadvantage. An understanding of both power relationships and disadvantage are vital in being able to plan within a sound moral and ethical framework that seeks "the general good".  Particular care needs to be taken to identify potential losers in the planning processes. However in considering diversity, we also need to be particularly careful of the dangers of

stereotyping (all women are…; all people from non-English speaking backgrounds are…; etc) whilst nevertheless being aware when considering disadvantage in particular, that various groups in society tend to be associated with various types of disadvantage more than others”. (Survey Respondent)

Course Outlines

            Subjects/Courses/Papers

The survey revealed very few courses specifically devoted to exploring notions of diversity.  The issues tend to be incorporated into a wide variety of established courses at both the undergraduate and postgraduate levels.  These are detailed in Table One.

TABLE ONE

Courses incorporating diversity issues

            Teaching Modes

“…few lectures…address topics [of diversity] specifically.  They tend to be incorporated more into my discussion of the practice of planning, such as: consultation, collaborative approaches to planning, social and economic impact assessment”. (Survey Respondent)

“…my approach to issues of diversity is essentially indirect”. (Survey Respondent)

A variety of teaching modes is used by survey respondents to communicate issues of diversity.  These include traditional and more innovative methods as follows:

·         seminars

·         workshops

·         field trip

·         exercises

·         lectures

·         team teaching

·         guest speakers

·         internships

·         individual research

·         distance education

·         tutorials

·         videos

·         role play

·         notes

·         studio

·         email list server

Successes in raising awareness of diversity issues

Survey respondents mentioned the following successes:

·         Introduction of students to indigenous culture and planning issues

·         Student self reflection about attitudes and values

·         Enhanced student skills including the ability to assess complex social and cultural development impacts; analyse how impacts can be avoided or reduced; recognise importance of including an awareness of diversity in stakeholder and public input processes

Difficulties in incorporating diversity issues into curricula

Two major themes emerged from the survey – resource constraints, and student attitudes and capacities.  Specific difficulties in incorporating diversity issues into curricula included:

·         Lack of funding for field trips

·         Cost constraints in preparing course notes

·         Time: too much material to cover in class; finding time to research and collect information on diversity

·         Student numbers: designing exercises and projects that are meaningful for large classes; overloading the lecturer with preparation of specialist exercises

·         Student stereotypes, antagonism, racism and prejudice towards gender and diversity issues

·         Students find issues confronting and difficult

·         Differing levels of academic background of students, experience, sensitivity, and knowledge of diversity issues

It is interesting to note that pedagogy did not emerge as a central concern or constraint of survey respondents.  In addition, few reflected on their own values or the need to develop their own understandings of diversity.  Respondents were willing to identify the confrontational nature of some diversity issues for their students, however few mentioned the difficulty of these issues for themselves.  “…each of us is intrinsically limited by our gender, social class, etc in truly seeing the world through the eyes of others.  Nevertheless, we should try, and as part of self reflective practice attempt to identify and examine our own biases and assumptions” (Survey Respondent).

Interestingly, the 2000 ANZAPS meeting did raise concerns about individual capacity, with calls for training in how to teach in a multicultural classroom, using culturally inclusive curricula.  This further reinforces the urgency for a national planning body to address the issue and formulate practice guidelines.

Effectiveness in raising issues of diversity

Survey respondents reported a range of effectiveness in raising issues of diversity in their classroom.  These included the following comments.

·       Sometimes difficult to judge (how do you know if students are merely “mouthing” what they think is expected?)

·       If students are not open to the message, they resist - doubtful that these closed attitudes change

·       Gives students new knowledges about groups totally outside their life experience

·       Gets discussion going

·       Develops an ethical perspective

·         Identifies means to address & measure problems of difference and diversity

·         Focus on process rather than specifics of diversity

DISCUSSION

Our survey raises some very interesting issues about incorporating difference and diversity in planning curricula and culturally responsive teaching modes.  Most of the issues we encountered are found in other research, and many of the difficulties cited are addressed in manuals designed to assist teachers working in contemporary multicultural classrooms.  There are four main areas of discussion which we address below.

1. Dichotomy of Acceptance

The implementation of a culturally inclusive curriculum and culturally sensitive classroom practices can be contentious.  While some individuals might be passionate about the need for change, others may be equally skeptical and resistant to change.  Forsyth (1995) attempts to unpack some of these controversies.  She tells four ‘stories’ of how difficult it was to get universal acceptance from faculty staff for the incorporation of difference and diversity issues in the planning curriculum.  The stories show how the imperative for change was rationalised away (for example, not knowing ‘how to do it’ and concerns about the level of anger this would unleash in the student body).  Looye and Sesay (1998:163) assert that a strong commitment across faculty is “…a very significant ingredient in any effort to diversify the curriculum”.  Inaction can also come from of a space of not knowing what to do – mirroring Forsyth’s stories of rationalisation.  Lee (1997: 261) summarises this ‘dichotomy of acceptance’ by suggesting that initiatives for culturally inclusive curricula and classroom practices are “…enthusiastically promoted by some institutions, funding agencies and faculty, but met with indifference or subjected to hostile criticism by others”.

At first we were surprised at the relatively poor response rate to our survey, but when we looked into this, the outcome was more understandable.  As well as taking on board the issues discussed in the literature, we speculated on specific reasons for the low response rate.  We concluded that it reflected many factors from no or little interest, being too busy, the survey poorly communicated, the subject being irrelevant, to active resistance to incorporating diversity awareness in the planning curriculum.  Given the poor survey response, we can only draw limited conclusions about the treatment of diversity across the planning curriculum in Australia and New Zealand.  Nevertheless, the results illuminate many of the critical issues and concerns, and suggest ways to take this further.

The ‘dichotomy of acceptance’ is also related to difficulties that academics have with notions of subjectivity and objectivity. 

“…we have so long been accustomed to delivering the academic tradition of academic free knowledge that few of us are ready to accommodate changes… most students are unable to accept the validity of alternative viewpoints.” (Lee, 1997: 264)

In addition, there is the difficulty of knowing how to respond to differences in the student body.  We have an increasingly diverse student population in both Australia and New Zealand.  This is a result of migration and the growing internationalisation of the student body.  Even though different approaches can be used in a multicultural classroom, there are hesitancies from staff.  One of the more emotive responses leading to inaction is the issue of student reluctance to hear these issues, and racism in the student body.  However, this can be used to rationalise the ‘do nothing’ approach as discussed by Forsyth (1995).

With Australian and New Zealand universities encouraging more and more international students, our gaps in cultural understanding are becoming increasingly evident.  We must develop our cultural understandings and sensitivities so that we can better meet the needs of our students and help them to develop the skills of cultural awareness and responsiveness. 

2. Pedagogical Challenge

“While we marginalise the experiences and cultures of students of color, we reinforce majority students with a false sense of superiority and misplaced conception of their relationship with other racial and ethnic groups.” (Tatum, 1992; Banks, 1993, in Lee, 1997: 265).

·         Pedagogical effectiveness

Survey respondents agreed that the use of different teaching modes is necessary to communicate an awareness of diversity.  Academics have to go beyond the traditional lecture to methods which nurture critical thinking and spirited, in-depth classroom discussion.  We have to get students to reflect in a variety of ways (including personal journals) by taking them on field trips, exposing them to representations of difference and diversity on film and in personal narratives, as well as drawing on student experience.  This acknowledges that people learn in different ways and that the communication of complex issues such as diversity awareness requires interactive and reflexive teaching modes.

·         Specific courses versus integration throughout the curriculum

These are the two major approaches to bringing diversity awareness into planning education- the design of specific courses and integration throughout the entire curriculum.  Both have difficulties.  Specific courses can lead to the marginalisation of diversity, whereas integration raises fundamental concerns about the ability of broad-scale restructuring to encompass disparate understandings and acceptance of diversity across faculty staff.  There is also the issue of professional recognition of planning courses and how change is negotiated with the accrediting bodies.  This raises the need for practitioners and academics to work closely together to devise policy for culturally inclusive planning curricula.  Such policy also needs to offer appropriate methodologies.

·         Resource Issues

The integration of diversity awareness requires significant resourcing including time, dollars, library research, staff commitment and technological support.  Given ongoing funding cuts to universities, the integration of diversity into the curriculum may be viewed as a luxury.  When coupled with staff who are seriously overloaded, this is perceived as an additional burden rather than a chance to expand and contemporise the curriculum.  This came out strongly in the survey and is a repeated theme in the literature.  However, Looye and Sesay (1998:162) believe that this need not be a problem offering their experience of a departmental wide review of the curriculum as evidence.  The perception that the design and implementation of a culturally inclusive education is resource intensive and accordingly, a luxury, can be another rationalisation for inaction.

Nevertheless, it cannot be ignored that in the current university climate, the ‘effectiveness’ of a course is frequently measured in terms of the number of students enrolled.  In this case, the viability of a course has nothing to do with the pedagogical issues but rather class size.  In a situation where we are trying to introduce new courses and attract greater numbers of students, the opportunity for creative educational innovation may well be limited.  This is a worrying trend for those of us concerned about educational effectiveness as a pre-requisite to producing informed and aware professionals across all disciplines.

·         IT Delivery

The current emphasis on web based teaching also raises questions about how to use this medium to enhance students’ understanding of difference and diversity.  The need for interactive and reflective teaching modes means that we have to think about the possibilities of using the web to facilitate such interaction.  Some interesting possibilities (which also addressed the difficulties) were presented at the 2000 ANZAPS meeting (see for example, papers by Cunningham and Witherby, in these Proceedings).  Nevertheless, we have to be careful to ensure that IT delivery does not inhibit more interactive and reflective modes of learning.

3. Institutional and socio-political frameworks

The institutions in which we work and the broader socio-political climate impinge on the ways that multicultural education is embraced and supported.  Using an American case study, Corey (1997) argues that the ways in which multicultural concerns can be introduced “…vary from institution to institution”.  Factors such as the university’s mission statement, the make-up of its student body and the administrative organisation all play a role.  So too does the broader socio-political climate.  In this regard, moves to the right in both New Zealand and Australia cannot be ignored.  Responding to so called “political correctness” may also be a way of injecting the rhetoric into courses, but at the risk of simply mouthing the words or “reciting the mantra” in Forsyth’s terms.  “If I recite the words race-class-gender (and maybe region and disability) enough, that means I have dealt with the issues” (Forsyth, 1995: 59).

From our survey, it appears that some course names are changing but we have to ask about the contents. For example, a course on transport planning and engineering could be re-titled “Access and Mobility”.  This could mean a variety of things: the appearance of political correctness; the competition for students; promoting “sexy” titles; people being willing to engage with the rhetoric of diversity without necessarily taking on the content of diversity?  Is this merely rhetoric as another way of rationalising diversity concerns away?

Our survey also suggests a gap between what is happening at the research, theory and in some cases, practice levels (for example, Blackwell, 1994), with what is occurring in planning education.  The need for responsive and relevant planning qualifications cannot be over-emphasised given the global context in which we increasingly operate.  The inclusion of cultural diversity in the planning curriculum is the “real challenge planners face today if they do not want simply to be facilitators of social exclusion and economic isolation” (Mier, 1994 in Looye and Sesay, 1998: 162). 

CONCLUSIONS

“Planning educators can also create new stories about the positive value of diversity…We can extend the long tradition of critiquing inequality…. Planning educators can be sophisticated, critical, and imaginative in teaching about issues of diversity and inequality, and in recruiting.  We will have to be to survive” (Forsyth, 1995:62).

The survey of planning academics across Australia and New Zealand reveals a mixed picture in the ways that we are responding to the challenge to be culturally inclusive, sensitive and aware educators.  Resources, teaching pedagogy and the socio-political climate of our institutions and governments are all factors in the equation.  But we must caution against using these as rationalisations for inaction.  In tandem with practitioners, we have to ensure that planning educators have the skills and knowledge to deal with diversity issues.  Are academics willing to invest the time to acquire those skills, and is there institutional support to facilitate this learning?  Just how serious is the university in responding to its multicultural student body?  Are we prepared to examine and work on our personal psychology in relation to prejudices and stereotypes we hold?  These are some of the hard questions that have to be asked if we are to deliver relevant, stimulating and exciting education in a globalised, multicultural 21^st Century.

REFERENCES

Allison, J; Austin, P; Kwitko, L; Leavitt, J and Thompson, S (1997) Gender and Diversity in the Planning Curriculum and Practice, ANZAPS Proceedings, University of Auckland, Auckland.

Berry, K (1997) “Projecting the voices of others: Issues of representation in the teaching race and ethnicity”, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, V 21, N2: 283-289.

Blackwell, A (1994) For One and All: Access and Equity in Local Government: A guide to customer service in a multicultural society, Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW, Sydney.

Corey, K (1997) “Integrative studies and ethnic studies at Michigan State University”, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, V 21, N2: 268-274.

Dunn, K (1999) Opposition to Mosques in Sydney, NSW: Representations of Islam and Multiculturalism, Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW.

Edgington, D; Hanna, B; Hutton, T and Thompson, S (forthcoming) “Urban governance, multiculturalism and citizenship in Sydney and Vancouver”, Progress in Planning.

Fincher, R (1998) Planning for Cities of Difference, Inaugural  Professorial Lecture, 20 May 1998, Melbourne University, Melbourne.

Fincher, R and Jacobs, J (eds) (1998) Cities of Difference, The Guilford Press, New York.

Forester, J (1999) The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Forsyth, A (1995) “Diversity issues in a professional curriculum: Four stories and some suggestions for change”, Journal of Planning and Education Research, V15, N1: 58-63.

Healey, P (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies, Macmillan, Houndmills.

Hutchison, K; Morrigan, L and Mappin, M (1997) Inclusive Curriculum: Information and Resources Guide, Funded by the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Victoria University of Technology.

Kwitko, L and Thompson, S (1998) “Diversity awareness and the planning curriculum: Time to take stock, ANZAPS Proceedings, University of Queensland, Brisbane.

Lee, D (1997) “Multicultural education in geography in the USA: An introduction”, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, V 21, N2: 261-268.

Looye, J and Sesay, A (1998) “Introducing diversity into the planning curriculum: A method for department-wide implementation”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, V18, N2: 161-170.

McConnell, J (1997) “Incorporating components of American pluralism into a course on the geography of the USA”, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, V 21, N2: 274-278.

McDowell, L (1992) “Engendering change: Curriculum transformation in human geography”, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, V16, N2: 185-197.

Moore Milroy, B (1991) “Taking stock of planning, space and gender”, Journal of Planning Literature, V6, N1:3-15.

Moxham, S and Roberts, P (1995) Gender in the Engineering Curriculum, Equal Opportunity Unit, University of Melbourne, University of Ballarat, Swinburne University of Technology, Victoria.

Qadeer, M (1997) “Pluralistic planning for multicultural cities: The Canadian practice”, Journal of the American Planning Association, V63, 481-494.

Reardon, K (1998) “Combating racism through planning education: Lessons from the East St. Louis action research project”, Planning Practice and Research, V13, N4: 421-432.

Sandercock, L (1998) Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities, Wiley, Chichester.

Sandercock, L (ed) (1998a) Making the Invisible Visible: A multicultural planning history, University of California Press, Berkley.

Sandercock, L and Kliger, B (1997) “Multiculturalism and the planning system”, Policy Discussion Series, No 1, Department of Landscape Environment and Planning, RMIT, Melbourne.

Sinclair, A (1995) Gender in the Management Curriculum, Equal Opportunity Unit, The University of Melbourne, Parkville.

Sinclair, A and Britton Wilson, V (1999) The Culture Inclusive Classroom: Perspectives from Management Education, Melbourne Business School, The University of Melbourne, Parkville.

Thompson, S (2000) “Diversity, difference and the multi-layered City”, in Freestone, R (ed) Urban Planning in a Changing World: The Twentieth Century Experience, E&FN Spon, London: 230-248.

Thompson, S; Dunn, K; Burnley, I; Murphy, P and Hanna, B (1998) Multiculturalism and Local  Governance: A national perspective, New South Wales Department of Local Government, Ethnic Affairs Commission of New South Wales, University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Watson, S. and McGillivray, A. (1995) “Planning in a multicultural environment: A challenge for the nineties” In Troy, P. (Ed) Australian Cities: Issues, Strategies and Policies for Urban Australia in the 1990s. Cambridge University Press, Melbourne:164-178.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the respondents who took the time to consider carefully and answer our survey.  Heartfelt thanks also to the participants at the 1997 and 1998 ANZAPS Meetings who contributed rich ideas and reflections at the workshops on difference and diversity.