Area Studies Specialist Group meeting
Monday 22nd January 2001
CILT 11.00 - 15.00

Minutes

Present: Janet Bartle JB (Subject Centre Academic Co-ordinator C&IT), David Bickerton DB (Chair Languages Specialist Group), Sue Currell SC, Alison Dickens AD (Subject Centre Academic Co-ordinator Area Studies), Dick Ellis DE (Chair), Chris Flood CF, Pandeli Glavanis PG, Karl Koch KK, Vicky Wright VW (Subject Centre Academic Co-ordinator Languages).
 
Apologies: Lynne Brydon, Clare Mar-Molinero, Lina Song, Paul O’Leary

1.	Minutes from last meeting and matters arising
Need to contact Portsmouth/Loughborough re Journal of Area Studies. Interest in the definition of Area Studies

2.	Mapping the Area Studies Community - who are we talking to and what are the issues? - the place of cultural study, eg. literature, film etc., identification with the disciplines rather than Area Studies ...
(see Area Studies Questionnaire, Informal Questionnaire Results, paper Crisis in Area Studies)
DE There seem to be three brands of Area Studies 
•	anglophone Area Studies (eg Canadian, American, some African etc.) Includes literature and media studies
•	non-anglophone Area Studies – includes L2 instruction and literary etc. study. SOArea Studies not necessarily thinks of itself as Area Studies
•	modern-Euro language studies – social sciences primarily rather than literature (located in MFL depts). Can be the case for Latin American Studies.

Feedback from Advisory Board Meeting 26th September 2000 
Discipline-specific study would be catered for by the relevant Subject Centre, e.g Politics, Geography etc. This Specialist Group should concentrate on generic issues such as interdisciplinarity, e-learning, etc. Literature specialists didn’t feel that this would be satisfactory for them.
KK  emphasised that this is an old debate for Area Studies, so questioned whether we should still be debating this?
Area Studies takes place if 3 factors are satisfied: 
Language
Disciplinary basis (must have a disciplinary base eg for literature/politics)
Selective cohesive elements, eg economic analysis of a country/area
This offers a more pragmatic definition (most relevant where there is integration of language in Area Studies programmes). This does not account for American Studies etc.
Karl also noted that Area Studies type journals exist under different titles eg German Studies
VW suggested that language should be left outside this triangle as separate discipline. 
KK emphasised that in his model language becomes part of the integrative model (inc. study abroad)
CF added that the benchmarking group has been debating similar issues.
The definition of this group concerns the multi-inter disciplinary study of a geographical area , either located in the arts or social sciences. In this case a straight literature degree doesn’t fit model, but American studies, Europea Studies, African Studies etc. do by virtue of the fact that they incorporate several disciplines (one of which may include literature). Language learning is cited as desirable but not essential.

Internationally – Area Studies is often seen as outmoded and is being replaced by globalisation as a key concept. It has also suffered charges of imperialism. Development studies is also seen as threatening Area Studies and doesn’t include the study of one area or involve language study. 
CF commented that this remains an interesting topic for debate. He questioned whether the study of nation states will continue. It could possibly be absorbed into larger entities although continent-based study, eg. America, China, Europe will prevail. European Studies is currently being globalised to reflect these changing circumstances.

KK remarked that this represents an exciting period of change. Area Studies is to be replaced by something else. Nigel Reeves has authored a paper taking the origin of Area Studies in a German context from Germanistik (which like Area Studies tried to integrate several disciplines) which became Landeskunde which was never accepted and has now evolved into intercultural studies.

The idea of a Subject Centre seminar on this issue (see item 6 was briefly discussed) Issues such as Crisis in Area Studies, Globalisaiton or recruitment were suggested. For languges the low take-up of single honours languages means that Area Studies enables students to pick and mix a degree (do a language with politics etc).
Area Studies remains a term that research funding bodies accept.
The Subject Centre/the Group favours a pragmatic approach – disseminating material, teaching practices

A reformulation of the title of the group  to Area and related studies was suggested but this may still not adequately cover literary studies that are not interdisciplinary. Should a literary specialist go into the languages group as well as the Area Studies Group?
VW mentioned that things are changing in this respect. Benchmarking for languages stresses that students will have had cultural and literature study except for in the case of  3 languages degrees (no time). 
CF  emphasised that Area Studies does need a disciplinary base otherwise one is teaching politics to students who know nothing about politics for example. 
KK stressed that when combining language and politics  practitioners should have a basis in politics.
VW pointed out that literature is as different to language learning as politics etc. 
CF emphasised that if we stress the multidisciplinary nature of Area Studies it excludes literature as this is a single discipline. Talking to English may help (we could run joint literature events). A meeting with the Director of the English Subject Centre is planned on 22nd February and the chairs of all three groups will be present.

Residence Abroad workshop
DE reported on the workshop run to disseminate the outcomes of the three FDTL projects to anglophone Area Studies where the attitude to placements is very different (concentrating on taking accredited modules in US universities).
The languages approach relates more to other objectives such as  intercultural learning, ethnography.
There was a good turn out at the workshop but very few from outside the languages community. Future events will need to be better targetted at their intended audience.
DE’s Informal survey (see meeting papers) indicates that people in languages don’t know what it Area Studies is but see it as relating to Civilsation (content) type courses.
CF pointed out that this outcome is therefore quite positive in that it shows what work needs to be done to identify a community for Area Studies.
DE gave some feedback from American studies colleagues, many of whom would have liked to have come, but had no time to attend.
This highlights the “what’s in it for me” problem and the need to raise awareness of what is important in learning and teaching for Area Studies?

1.	Needs survey the story so far and where next - report on general survey, discussion of working document on area studies needs. (see Area Studies Questionnaire, Needs Survey Results).
DE will  pilot a project to find shared materials. 
The Subject Centre is seeking to complile a Resources database to give information about  who’s done what and where materials are located. Individuals can then seek them out through individual contact.
We need to obtain more details of what people really want in terms of resources etc.
We will return to our correspondents to ask what they mean by downloadable resources (see needs survey results).

2.	Arts and Humanities Online Seminar Report (Sue Currell)
Most attendees were librarians, but Sue found it useful nonetheless as a means of finding out  where the LTSN stands in relation to other Learning and Teaching organisations
She identified several avenues for collaboration such as data about resources which we can hook into by making links from our website.
Arts and Humanities data service for example provides a means of standardising format of resources and storing them in a supported environment. Otherwise technical changes can make data more invisible (if it is in obsolete programs). 
There are five different services included in this data service.
•	Hefce projects in this area have to give resources to this service – we must link to it.
•	Edina (JISC) – data service inc. BIDs, periodicals (Sue will supply leaflets to Janet for details to be included on our webpages)
•	Subject Centres/LTSN. Bruce Brown – SC for Arts and Design gave a presentation on where LTSN fits in. They are part of a 3 point support. LTSN works with other data projects to support innovations in L&T, pedagogical research, professionalisation of teaching, student access (independent learning/technology). Changes in work practice necessitate changes in study environment – self employment/independent/lifelong learning
•	HUMBUL (resource discovery network). Cross-disciplinary searching/virtual training suite (to test web-based training materials). There will be dynamic delivery of resources (through a subscription which relates to individual interests whereby new developments will be emailed to subscribers , thus avoiding having to search websites)
•	Resource Guide for Arts and Humanites – leaflet brings together all resources available (web page available)
Sue stressed that it is important not to replicate work done by these projects. Members of projects will present at events or run workshops. It may also be a way of helping us run free events (through joint activites).
Sue also observed that the research element of the web is very complementary to the teaching element

1.	Benchmarking – Consultation Event 12th February 2001 (see Benchmarking flier)
DE is attending this event to publicise the Subject Centre
CF is one of the panel members
Sub-groups have been established to deal with aspects of the document and Philip Davies is writing the introduction. The second draft has been completed and will be sent out to the rest of the group as well as to participants at the event and the Reference Group. Subsequently a third draft will be formulated.
There are plans for an appendix of sample programmes for Area Studies. The question remains as to how to deal with the geographical and discipline spread. There are many issues that benchmarking can’t address (e.g. breadth v. depth, standards, progression etc. which the SC should pursue)
DB gave a brief report from the languages benchmarking group (which covers single honours degrees, some of which contain 50% Area Studies). He suggested the two groups investigate any collaboration potential as has occurred in the case of Hellenic Studies.
VW stressed that the group should focus on  specialist linguists and that practitioners are free to choose any benchmark that fits their subject area.
CF notes that medecine is likewise not a single discipline (most disciplines are such).
PG mentioned that the CCASA response is that the draft doesn’t fit for 50% and that individual Area Studies will need to look elsewhere. He noted that the benchmark is also rather vague and stressed the need to continue the debate on Area Studies elsewhere ,eg. the SC.
The question remains as to whether benchmarking is a rather empty box in order to produce one model that fits all.
We should talk to the languages group before the meeting on the 12th February.
The Area Studies benchmark will most probably provide a model that can then be adapted for American Studies, Middle East Studies, European Studies.
There is much reference to language, but this is not always compulsory, but is for specific fields (as in residence abroad).
PG raised the question of the ESRC – MA/MSc/PhD funding – and asked what is their understanding of Area Studies?
QAA will soon start looking at PG programmes, so we need to address this. 

2.	Workshops and seminars - e-learning and Area Studies event (see workshops flier, outline programme for web workshops, proposal for Area Studies event)
PG suggested we discuss the PG programmes issue as well as the relationship with Development Studies
CF emphasised that we must try to include relevant people and not drift into unrelated areas.
DB highlighted the need to include the literature/culture element.
Titles: Do we need Area Studies? Transformation of Area Studies
Whither Area Studies Teaching?
We hope to establish the existence or otherwise of common aspects of Area Studies type programmes.
Action: The Group will advise on L&T issues/facilitators. 
It was generally agreed to invite participants (nominated by subject organisations) and to limit numbers to 30. The event will include discussion of both issues and methodology
Space will be made for other groups, eg. ESRC/AHRB/Development Studies

3.	Any other business and date of next meeting
It has been proposed to have our next meeting to coincide with that of the Languages Group on 28th June 2001 so that the groups can meet to look at collaborative activities (such as a 2002 Subject Centre conference).