Page 7 - Teste nec

knowledge but also to produce inspiration through stimulating imi-
tation and competition. The combined effects of these four features
create what they call “buzz”: “Individuals in a buzz environment in-
teract and cooperate with other high-ability people, are well placed to
communicate complex ideas with them, and are highly motivated”. [24] Storper; Venables, 2004, p. 365.
24
Face-to-face contacts, however, are not limited to conference
scheduled activities, they also include informal activities outside the
event such as the logistical preparations to participate, sharing a hotel
room or going dancing together. As Faulconbridge has shown, these [25] Faulconbridge, 2006.
25
social activities are important trust-building elements that, while of-
ten not advertised as part of the official programs, are essential parts
of the trust-building environment and buzz that a conference creates.
Conversations in hallways, card exchanges over coffee breaks, infor-
mal meetings during meals or closed-door meetings are essential not
only to learn implementation details of the new policies proposed in
sessions but also to build trust between the different actors involved
in urban policymaking and planning, particularly when the policies
being discussed are new or still peripheral to the mainstream of the
planning profession. However, this is never a rational learning exercise
in which all policy alternatives are considered. As noted by Grabher,
practitioners do not deliberately “scan” their environment in search of
a specific policy or piece of information. Rather, they are “surrounded
by a concoction of rumours, impressions, recommendations, trade
folklore and strategic misinformation”. 26 [26] Grabher, 2002, p. 209.
In previous paragraphs I showed how recent debates in economic
geography suggest that the availability of formal and informal spaces
for face-to-face (f2f) communication are an essential characteristic
of conferences and policy learning forums that facilitate the transmis-
sion of policy knowledge and the creation of networks. Economic ge- [27] Storper; Venables, 2004; Faul-
27
ography debates on f2f and buzz are not however interested in power conbridge, 2006; Grabher, 2002.
and politics and therefore little is said in those debates about how the
transmission of knowledge, trust building and motivation generated
by f2f is used for the purposes of agenda setting or to reshape urban
governance structures. Recent work in urban geography and planning,
however, has started to reveal more details about the ways in which
the learning dynamics, expertise mobilization and face-to-face prac-
tices that take place in conferences are linked to power dynamics in
cities. For example, McCann and Cook and Ward have analyzed [28] McCann, 2011; McFarlane, 2011;
28
29
30
the role of conferences as key informational infrastructures that facilitate Campbell, 2012; Cook; Ward, 2012.
the movement of urban policies and inter-city policy learning. Cook [29] McCann, 2011.
and Ward have conceptualized conferences as “temporary (i.e. time- [30] Cook; Ward, 2012.
31
limited) events that bring together people from particular epistemic
communities for face-to-face interaction and the exchange of verbal, [31] Cook; Ward, 2012, p. 138.
visual and symbolic information”. Conferences are also therefore

64 PERSuASIVE PRACtItIONERS AND tHE ARt OF SIMPLIFICAtION ❙❙ Sergio Montero

03_montero_dossie_107_p58a75.indd 64 3/31/17 4:59 PM