CENTRAL EUROPEAN STEERING COMMITTEE FOR CANADIAN STUDIES
Seventh
meeting of the CESCCS
Report
Participants
Don Sparling (the
Monica Bottez (
Maria Huttova (
Ljiljana Matic (
Judit Molnar (
Agnieszka Rzepa (Poland) [AR]
Katalin Kurtosi (Central European Journal of Canadians Studies) [KK]
Petr Vurm – Assistant, CE
CS Secretariat, Brno, Czech Republic [PV]
1.Opening
The meeting opened at
9.15
2. Adoption of the
agenda
The agenda was adopted as
presented.
3. Approval of the
report on the Grainau meeting
No comments, changes or
amendments were suggested, so the report was adopted as presented.
4. Financial report
DS handed out three separate financial
reports: i) the financial report for the fiscal year 2001/2002; ii) the budget
proposal for the fiscal year 2002/2003; iii) the report on the current balance
to
i)
Financial report for the fiscal year 2001/2002 (Appendix 1)
DS noted
that the form of the report was slightly different from previous years; he had
based this year’s report on the annual financial report made by Cornelius Remie
to the European Network for Canadian Studies. The term “account”
means money carried over from one fiscal year to another, usually for some
specific purpose (e.g. publication of the
He also
pointed out the item referred to as “members’ time”. This is a notional item representing in a very approximate fashion
the value of the time put in by Steering Committee members during the year in
carrying out their committee responsibilities. It is there as a reminder of
just how much extra time and work on the part of the committee members is
needed for the Network to function.
AR remarked that the
Canadian Embassy in Warsaw asks them in addition to include an item
representing any kind of institutional help (rooms they use, computers, mailing
facilities, etc.).
ii) Budget proposal for
the fiscal year 2002/2003 (Appendix 2)
DS explained that this
too differed from previous years. Everything is going electronic at DFAIT, and
they now have a blank form that is to be filled in. So far it is only in the
trial stage, but we were asked to submit the proposal using the format.
As usual, the procedure
was for DS to submit a proposal to the embassy in Prague and to Marie-Laure de
Chantal; the latter examined it, discussed it with Jean Labrie, and then made
various suggestions and amendments. The proposal was then rewritten,
incorporating any changes, and resubmitted. This year was somewhat more complicated
than previous years, since Ottawa suggested various changes in the budget as
well as in the practices of the Steering Committee.
In order to make the CE
Website accessible to Francophone Canadianists, Ottawa suggested that work
should be put in to increase the use of French on the site. Funds in the budget
were reallocated to accomplish this, though DS explained that the cost would
probably not be as much as Ottawa had anticipated. This was because much could
be done fairly simply by having individuals' entries entered and updated in the language of the
courses they taught; the teachers themselves would be able to see to their entries. So only the main
pages would require parallel English and French versions. DS would also try to ensure that all
communications via the listserve would be in English and French - in this he
would be able to rely on Petr Vurm (though perhaps he, i.e. DS, would have to
curb his natural eloquence a little bit).
Human resources item: DS
pointed out that there was no item for members' time (which would have been
$5000). This probably should have been included. It was his fault that this had
been overlooked, since he had not included in the grant request the section of
the original electronic form entitled "Revenues", where an
"income" of $5000 could have been included.
iii) Report on current
balance to 22 October 2002 (Appendix 3)
DS noted that this was
absolutely up-to-date, reflecting the state of the account the day before.
DS pointed out that DFAIT
had sent $12,000 - the full grant for the operations of the CE Secretariat - to
the Canadian Embassy in Prague, but that $120 had been lost when this was
transferred to the CE Network account in Brno. LM claimed that in Yugoslavia
the Canadian Embassy transferred funds with no bank charges, and that we should
try to do the same here. DS doubted whether this was in fact true - in his
experience, banks everywhere charge for bank to bank transfers - but could ask.
The first instalment for
the Krakow conference ($4500) was not actually paid to the CE CS Network
account, but went straight to the Canadian Embassy in Warsaw, which would
convey it (or had already conveyed it) to PACS. AR wished to know what account
- in Warsaw? DS did not know; this was the responsibility of the Embassy in
Warsaw. Perhaps it would send it directly to the conference account in Krakow.
The funds to allow 13 CE
Canadianists to go to conferences (see 8.ii below) are being administered
through the ICCS and local embassies; this will avoid the loss of considerable amounts of money
in the form of bank charges.
5. Central European
Canadian Studies Secretariat, Brno
i) Initiatives
a) DS reported that no major new initiatives had been undertaken. A
beginning had been made on "bilingualizing" the site (see 4.ii
above), with Francophone-oriented CE Canadianists being asked to supply
information in French on their activities. So far, however, there had not been
much response. This reflected a wider problem, that of keeping the information
on all the CE Canadianists
on the Website up to date. PV is
continually adding new material, taking off out-of-date items, and checking to
make sure links still function. However, one of the major problems is that when
we ask CE Canadianists to update their entries, especially what courses they're
teaching, there is seldom any response. Which means that in this respect the
pages are generally not up to date: what is there is the courses they offer,
but not when. DS suggested that, if the Steering Committee agreed, we would no
longer ask people to update their entries every year, but merely ensure
(through contact persons) that individuals, with basic information, were
listed. The SC agreed.
b) A few more MA and graduate
students had come to Brno to do research; DS hoped that numbers would increase.
AR asked who they
should contact if they wished to come - the answer was PV. AR also asked what arrangements are made for the
people in Brno. DS answered that accommodation can be arranged, at a rate of
about $15 CAD per night, which they have to pay themselves. The Secretariat looks after office supplies,
photocopying. There is free access to the library where the Canadian collection
is held; the books are available in open stacks and the catalogue is online. DS
asked those present to encourage more
students to come to
ii) Class-set grants.
There had been problems this year owing originally to a fairly late decision by
Ottawa to continue the
programme, and then to the conjunction of the original deadline with the height
of the exam period. In the end ten good applications came in; they were sent to
AR made the comment that
young scholars at some universities find it difficult to get permission to
start new courses. But if they can say that there will be a class-set grant to
ensure material for the new courses, there is a greater likelihood that the
course will be permitted. So we should not overlook the class-set grant as a
tool for expanding CS courses. DS note that some people were informed that if
they were just starting in CS it was not possible to apply for a CS class-set
grant. If the programme is continued, this point should be clarified.
iii) Other book grants.
KK pointed out that a new edition of the Bennet and Brown anthology of Canadian
literature in English had just appeared; she suggested that we should ask
Ottawa to supply every CS centre in the region with at least three copies
(cost: $45 CAD per copy), since it is the most useful general anthology
available. DS promised to suggest this to Marie-Laure de Chantal; perhaps if
there is money remaining towards the end of the fiscal year this would be a good way of employing
it.
LM noted that, with regard to Franco-Canadian
literature, the seventh volume of the Dictionnaire des oeuvres litteraires au quebec is now in print
– all centres should have the series. She asked how many in fact had the first six
volumes? KK suggested we could ask, and then perhaps come up with some plan for
getting them supplied. DS said it might be better to send a circular asking who
actually needs it.
MB suggested there was
another item that centres
would need - the Canadian Oxford Dictionary – it could go to each centre (hardback copy, $50 CAD).
iv) Journals from BACS.
These were finally distributed
to the various CE Canadian Studies Centres. DS would try to approach other associations at the ENCS meeting in December
to see whether others would be willing to do something similar, especially if
they had lots of back issues. Even some
centres have their own journal (Marburg, Augsburg), but that might be more
tricky. LM suggested this could also be done with the Cahiers francophone (we
could ask Arpad Vigh). DS asked what this was; on learning of its
non-specifically-Canadian nature, he suggested that perhaps Quebec-focused issues might be useful.
v) CE publications. MB
suggested that a copy of each CE publication (book, journal) should be sent to
Brno; it could be a "small Berlin". She would ask Romanian
Canadianists to do this, and suggested others might do the same in their
countries.
6. CS Development in
Central Europe
The individual country reports are presented as Appendixes
4-10. Only useful points brought up in the course of the individual
presentations are presented here.
When AR mentioned the
large number of young
Poles at the graduate student seminar in Berlin this year, DS asked how many
were MA students and how many doctoral students. AR's answer was three out of
nine. DS noted that he believed the original idea had been for the seminar to
be for doctoral students; he wondered if there was a general trend to heavy
participation of MA students, or if this year was an exception. This would be
discussed at the next ENCS meeting
DS pointed out that new initiatives in the Czech
Republic had been possible thanks to governmental grants. Now that the country
is moving towards the Bologna Declaration model (three-year BA, two-year MA),
grants are being made not only for new BA and MA degree programmes, but for
individual courses to make offerings more attractive. These have included new
CS courses (at
During the brief
presentations of the country reports, MB had noted that each was done in a
different way, and presented different material. She suggested that in future
we should follow the same format. This was agreed on. While the presentations
were being made, DS noted the different areas covered, and tried to group them
conveniently into a number of categories. His starting point had been that the
intention was to present country reports, not university reports - i.e. to give
a picture of what was happening in the various countries, not at individual
universities. With this in mind, he suggested that in future information in the
country reports should be presented in nine sections, as follows (details
agreed on during the discussion are included):
1. New courses and new centres (this would give a
picture of how CS was developing in the country as a whole). These should be
grouped by area, with the name of the university where they have been
introduced in brackets.
2. Conference participation; important, as it
would indicate how active the Canadianists in the country are.
"Participation" here means giving a paper; the name of the person,
the conference, and the title of the paper should be provided.
3. Academic publications (books [monographs],
essays/chapters in collections, articles in journals, reviews in serious
journals)
4. Visiting lecturers
(either for single lectures or offering complete courses)
5. Grants (FRP, FEP,
governmental grants)
6. Young Canadianists. There was a lot of
discussion on what exactly we want to see here. There was common agreement on
numbers of people doing MAs and doctorates, as well as the titles of MA theses
and doctorates that have been successfully defended. MB pointed out that the
Romanian system requires that doctoral students present papers in front of
examiners in the first stage; only then are they allowed to go on to write. She
felt these too should be mentioned. There was general agreement, however, that
it would be best to stick to information that would be common to all countries.
7. Cultural activities related to Canada in the
country in question. This ties in with CS, gives a picture of what’s happening.
These could be exhibitions, concerts, theatre productions, etc.
8. Translations and
special issues of journals.
9. Other.
It was agreed that the country reports at the next SC
meeting would follow this format.
7. Publications
i) CE Journal, Volume 2
DS handed out copies of
the second volume of the CE Journal. KK as Editor-in-Chief reported that it contained about twice as much material as Volume I. Since we want
to be able to produce good quality journal, there was careful selection: what
was published is about 70% of the total number of articles submitted. Each one
was read by at least five people, four country readers plus Katalin. This was
perhaps a slight case of overkill, but it was best, especially in the early
issues of the journal, to make it clear that we were approaching the task
carefully, and to ensure that we could not be charged with favouring (or
hindering) anyone.
KK went on to speak about
the appearance of the journal, and technical details. The cover had been
changed slightly: now the map covered a better part of Europe (i.e. more of
CE), and the names of non-CE countries had been removed. DS admitted to having forgotten
to ask MB for the name of the artist who designed the original cover, and
promised it would appear in Volume 3; MB supplied it - Petru Rogojina. KK said
that it was nice-looking journal, with various improvements in comparison with
Volume 1 (the cover, the table of contents). Nevertheless, the margins were
still not right (and this would make binding difficult).
Turning to the content,
KK said there was a better proportion of English and French articles, and some
include references to the other linguistic domain, which was good. A decision
of principle had had to be made: should the contributors be only from the
region, or would we consider outsiders? This came up because Daniel Forget of
Ottawa University had submitted a paper. In the end, KK felt that the presence of her paper would benefit
the journal, and so decided to accept the paper. However, a decision should be
taken as to SC policy on this issue. She felt that the vast majority of
articles would be from the CE region in any case, but that if a person from
outside wanted to submit, it should be considered along with all the CE
articles - again, it would serve as a sign that the journal was being taken
seriously by Canadianists outside the region. DS suggested discussion of this
issue be left till slightly later.
A debate
arose as to reviews: should any book
be eligible, or should there be some kind of criteria for the books under
review. After considerable discussion,
it was decided that this section of the Journal should be restricted to:
1. Books by authors from the region. It does not
matter whether these are in English/French (not many of which are actually
published - though see Ana Olos on Findley, or Arpad Vigh on stylistics of
Quebec literature) or in national languages; the aim is to let people outside
know what is being done here.
2. Books, CD's etc. by Canadian/foreign authors.
Here there was considerable discussion. DS expressed the opinion that the
review section as a whole should have as its aim letting people know what was
happening in the region, and a review of a new book by a Canadian author (e.g.
Huston, as in this issue) did not contribute to this aim. However, it was
pointed out that it might be very good for CE Canadianists to be informed about
various books by Canadianis or foreign authors - in Volume 2 of the CE Journal,
for example, Nancy Burke had reviewed a book that she said would be of
particular use to teachers in CE courses, in that it provided background that
was hard to find elsewhere. Also, the CD-Rom revied by Alois Hynek and Leona
Kovarikova was exremely useful in a region where textbooks were scarce. In the
end it was agreed that books or other items by Canadians and other foreigners
would be eligible if the case could me made that it was particularly useful for
teaching in the region.
3. Translations of Canadian books. Again, opinion
was divided. DS said that translations were only useful for particular language
groups. However, KK pointed out that translations were very important in that
they gave a picture of what was coming into the region; also, translators don't
get much recognition, and this was a way of doing it . AR supported her, saying
that this was an essential aspect of what was happening in CS in the region. It
was decided that translations were indeed important, and that reviewers should
try to put their reviews in a broader context, e.g. other translations of the
same author, how the translation fits into the local culture, quality of
translation and so on.
DS brought up two other
points. First was the speed with which the Masaryk University Press had worked.
In less than a month from the first discussions - and only two weeks after
handing in the final text copy (the cover material had been sent in earlier) -
the journal was published. DS would like to express his thanks, and the thanks
of the SC, to the head of the press, Ms. Milada Bajerova, for her exemplary
work.
Second, there was the
question of non-CE people publishing in the journal (see KK's comments above).
DS put this in a broader context. When the first draught of the 2002/2003
budget was submitted to Marie-Laure de Chantal in early summer, one of the
suggestions she made was that we should perhaps consider publishing in one
volume the best papers from the Bucharest conference and the best papers
submitted to the CE Journal. This obviously reflected a concern for the quality
of the publications. DS discussed this by e-mail with KK and MB, but in the end
we felt there was enough good material for two separate publications. However, we
also felt that one sign of the quality of the journal would be if recognized
academics outside the region were interestd in publishing in it. Hence KK's
decision to include the paper by Danielle Forget and Zarin Kassim in Volume 2.
This had not been solicited, but submitted as a response to the call for
papers, which she had read when she was in Pecs. MB felt we should limit outside
participation. DS agreed, suggesting one or two at the maximum. KK threw in the
idea of a guest section. AR agreed that it helped promotion to have someone
from outside. The position agreed on by the SC members was in favour of
allowing outside contributions, with the proviso that there should be no more
than one or two such articles in any particular issue; perhaps this could be a
French/English pair.
DS opened up the question
of Volume 3 of the CE Journal. Should we
do it annually, or only two out of every three years, with the CE conference
Proceedings in between? The general feeling was that the CE Journal and the
conference Proceedings were different things, and that we should stick to an
annual volume of the CE Journal. In this connection, KK said that Peter Szaffko
had not been able to get enough funding for the Debrecen conference to pay for
the publication of papers read there. Therefore we could open the journal to
the papers read at the conference. It was agreed that DS would mention this at
the CE Canadianists' session on Saturday, and that when the call for papers was
issued, we should say that we welcome papers from the conference.
MB asked whether copies
of the CE Journal were sent to libraries. DS said that postage is expensive; we
will ask SC members to distribute the journal and make sure they get to CS
Centres and Canadianists. MB asked for one copy per contributor and one per
Centre. DS said there were more than that - all the Canadianists in CE should
receive a copy. Also, there are copies for Western Europe, Ottawa, etc.
MB reminded the meeting
that we had not established a deadline for submissions. It was agreed that the
deadline should be before the next SC meeting.
Monday 3 March 2003 was set; this gives people more than 4 months. DS
and PV will sound out a call for papers and announce this on the CE Website .
iii)
Proceedings of
MB explained that there
had been delays since she was waiting for the last papers; even though they
were very late, she felt it was worh it (e.g. Myrna Kostash's paper). Over 30
submissions; for each she has two reviews. In some cases there are suggestions
for changes; she will get back to the contributors and ask them to do this.
Editing will not be easy: MLA standards not observed in some cases, and the
quality of the language is not up to scratch. DS said he, Petr Kylousek and PV
would see to the final linguistic and technical editing. MB was also not sure
whether people would resubmit papers with the suggested changes. DS said that
in his experience, unless people were asked to make major changes, they usually
do make them and send the papers back. He also pointed out that one problem in
doing the final editing was references: before that stage, the authors of
articles should have been asked to supply any missing references in the text,
and to make sure that the references in the text correspond to the titles
listed in "Works cited".
MB had some questions of
the SC. First, should papers on teaching Canada be included? After a brief
discussion it was decided yes, if they are good: they may be a help to starting
Canadianists. Second, should papers be included if the presenter was in the end
unable to be present in Bucharest? The answer here was no: the Proceedings
should be a (partial) record of the actual conference. However, any such paper
can be submitted to the CE Journal. Third, what about the possibility of a
paper of someone who was there being submitted now at this late date. DS said
why not - there might be exceptional cases where for some very good reason it
had been impossible to submit the articles until now.
DS asked MB to write a
brief introduction to the publication, in both English and French versions.
AR brought up the
question of the title of the publication: in Poland articles in
Proceedings" were not valued in people's lists of publications. Also,
libraries don't seem to be interested in Proceedings, but rather in collections
of essays. DS said we would use the title of the conference for the
publication, and indicate in some way that these are papers from the
conference, or selected papers, or papers delivered in their original form at
the conference. MH said we should keep the form (cover, etc.) but without
calling the series the Proceedings of the CE conferences.
DS asked what the
deadline was for publication of this volume go out? It was decided that MB
would immediately send out to their authors (by e-mail) those articles that
needed revision, asking them to send them back to her by 15 January. She would
then look at them, decide if they were alright, and send them immediately to
DS. The final editing would be done in Brno, the aim being to have the
publication out in the spring by the next meeting of the SC.
iii) European graduate
student seminar
DS explained that there
had been no policy for publishing papers from the annual ENCS graduate student
seminars. Some national associations got money to publish, others didn’t. A
special grant was made available for publication of the Brno seminar in 2000.
DS suggested to Cor Remie that this should be a series, publishing the papers
annually. In the end Cor Remie came up with the idea that this could be a
general series for the ENCS, publishing not only the papers from graduate
seminars but papers from other events organized by the ENCS (e.g. the series of
miniseminars now underway in various venues in Western Europe). DS offered to
look after this (mainly because publishing costs are reasonable in Brno), the
first volume being for the papers from 1998 Belfast seminar, which had been
prepared for publication and for which funds had been set aside. A special
cover for the series was prepared by a Danish designer. DS handed out copies of
the first volume of the series (the Belfast papers), explaining that further
copies would be sent out later via embassies. The second volume in the series,
with the Brno papers, would come out in November.
8. Conferences and
meetings
i) ICCS Annual General Meeting in Ottawa, 8-9 May 2002
DS said that there was
nothing of immediate concern to report about the meeting. The main event from a
CE standpoint was the admission of the Polish Association for Canadian Studies
to the ICCS as an associate member; the vote had been unanimous. Before the
vote questions had been raised as to PACS's relationship to the CE Network, and
the position of the Steering Committee with regard to the application; DS had
explained that the relationship worked well, that the SC expected it to
continue to work well in future (viz its decision to hold the 3rd CE conference
in Krakow in 2004), and that it supported the application. AR thanked DS, in
the name of PACS, for the support expressed in Ottawa.
ii) Participation in conferences in 2002/2003 and in future GKS conferences
a) DS explained how
complicated a question this was, since three issues intertwined: where the SC
would meet in the spring of 2003, how the allocation for the thirteen places
for CE Canadianists at conferences would be allocated, and the nature of future
CE participation in Grainau.
Concerning participation
by CE Canadianists in the GKS conferences in Grainau, in 2003 and later years,
DS explained that the GKS had decided to limit the number of places in 2003 to
ten. No decision had been taken yet for later years, but there were in essence
two models, either a gradual fading out (e.g. 6 in 2004, 3 in 2005, none from
2006 on) or a complete end, beginning in 2004, to the practice of reserving
spaces for CE Canadianists. DS pointed out that though many felt this decision
was a pity, in fact it should be seen as a tribute to the dynamic growth of CS
in the CE region; we were no longer viewed as struggling neophytes who needed
to be nourished by the GKS. In any case, in future CE Canadianists could apply
for participation in the conference, paying themselves; the Nordic Canadianists
do this on a regular basis. In this connection, AR asked whether they send out
calls for papers to the conferences. DS replied that he didn't believe so -
they invite speakers. Most of these tend to be from Canada, but European
Canadianists who are distinguished in their field are also asked to speak at
Grainau. Presumably, also, anyone could get in touch with a GKS member and
offer a paper, if the theme of the conference was something related to his or
her work.
Concerning the meeting of
the SC in the spring of 2003, DS reminded the SC members that there had been
two sets of e-mails about this in the early fall. The result was the decision
that the SC would somewhere else in the spring of 2003, not at Grainau (see 11
below). Since the GKS has made allowance for 10 CE places at Grainau in
February 2003 (paid from the CE CS Network budget), this means that all 10
could be taken by Canadianists from the CE region. However, the grant we have
is for thirteen places at various conferences (each person to received $250
CAD). This meant several things had to be decided.
DS began by pointing out
that each country was slightly different. In the case of Poland, for example,
and Yugoslavia, there were associations (though each enjoyed a different
status). This was not the case in other countries. So in effect there were
three different "players" who might be involved in deciding who might
attend which conference - associations, SC members and local Canadian Embassies
- and what had to be decided was both general guidelines and specific practices
in individual countries. One thing that had to be kept in mind was that by
about 20 December DS had to know who at least was going to Grainau, in order to
be able to inform the GKS.
One good thing was that
the money for CE Canadianists' conference participation had been forwarded to
an ICCS account in Ottawa, which means it doesn’t have to be spent by end of
fiscal year and there will be no waste in the form of bank charges (the ICCS
will send the money to the local embassies on our instructions, and the
individuals will be able to be reiumbursed there). Will have to decide in each
country whether a person will go to Grainau or some other conference. In
February 2003 the theme at Grainau is Acadie; DS felt that those chosen to go
there should be Francophones. Sending people specializing in the field of the
conference will also be welcomed by the GKS
MB said we should specify
the criteria and strategy. She suggested candidates should send applications to
both the local embassy and their SC member. Last year there was a choice, so
that some sent the application to the SC member and others to the embassy; this
led to confusion. She also felt strongly that qualified people should get the
conference grants. DS agreed in principle, though pointing out that sometimes
it was good to encourage new people, and that in the past the GKS insisted on
new people going to Grainau. However, he felt that this year general criteria
should be the same. For example, preference could be given to someone
experienced who wanted to give a paper at a conference (this would not apply to
Grainau). AR noted that this needn’t be an experienced person - young people
were also quite capable of giving good papers.
[The
meeting broke for lunch at
[The meeting reconvened at
DS reminded
the SC members that the division of grants had been decided on as follows:
The discussion moved on
to that of the criteria for making the grants. Various difficult points were
raised in turn. AR pointed out that people might have submitted a paper for
delivery at a conference, but not have received acceptance by the deadline for
the grant application. DS felt it was enough that the individual had submitted
the paper for delivery, though if we wished, in such a case we could also ask
for the abstract of the paper. MB said there was a difference between wishing
to give a paper and not being accepted, so the criterion should be that people
were willing to give papers. DS pointed out that at the ENCS miniconferences,
for example, the papers are invited. MB then we said we should make exceptions
for conferences with invited papers. Most of the SC members, however, felt that
this was getting too complicated. KK
pointed out that, given the number of potential places at Grainau, we were
probably not talking about many places at other conferences, only one or at
most two people per country (and that only in the larger countries). MH felt
that if there was no one willing to present a paper, we might choose someone
who had already shown their qualities. DS felt we shouldn’t discourage people
from applying, but we should at least try this. Applications from applicants
wishing (going to) to give a paper shuld be encouraged. In any case, this is
only for this year - we don't know if Ottawa will support CE Canadianists going
to conferences next year, and Grainau participation will certainly decline, so
we’ll have to think more seriously about the situation then. What we are faced
with now is a transitional situation.
DS summed up the discussion
by suggesting that the best thing would be to send out an announcement of the
grants to everybody on the mailing list. This would include the conditions, and
the criteria that we decided on. Individuals would be asked to submit
applications, including brief CVs and explanations as to why they wanted to
attend either the Grainau conference or some other particular conference. The application should be sent in two copies,
to the SC representative and the local embassy.
AR said that in Poland it would perhaps be enough to send the
applications just to PACS. DS agreed that Poland was different, having an
association that was a member of the ICCS; in this case the applications could
perhaps be sent to just the association.
Yugoslavia also had an association, though it is in a very different
position; even if it hasn't functioned much yet, it still exists, and shouldn't
be ignored. He would have to work this out with Vesna Lopicic, who was also
present in Debrecen.
The criteria for
selection were agreed on as follows.
1. People could apply to
go either to Grainau or to some other place (see above).
2. Those wishing to go to Grainau should be
Francophone-centred in their interests; ideally, they would already have shown
some interest in l'Acadie.
3. Those wishing to go to some other conference
and were giving a paper, or had submitted a proposal for a paper, would be
given preference. No distinction would be made in this regard between
experienced/inexperienced.
Finally, AR reminded the
meeting that we had not decided on a deadline for submitting applications. MB
suggested there could be two deadlines, one for those wishing to go toGrainau,
one for the rest. DS agreed this was logical - only later would some
conferences be announced - but that we could not know how many places to assign
to Grainau (ten was a maximum, not the necessary number) unless we knew where
else people wanted to go. He suggested a deadline of 9 December 2002 for all
applications, with a rapid selection of people for Grainau so that he could
inform the GKS before Christmas, as he had promised. December 9 was agreed on,
and December 16 for informing DS.
iii) 3rd
international conference of CE Canadianists,
DS apologized for not
bringing with him the draught budget, which had been approved by DFAIT. He
promised to include it in the rerport (see Appendix 11).
The question was raised
of the conference fee. DS said that in working out the budget he and Anna
Reczynska had stuck to the fees charged in Bucharest – approximately $50 CAD
for teachers and $25 CAD for students (in Bucharest the fee had been stated in
American dollars - $35 and $15, respectively).
Concerning the theme, DS
said that "Memory and Place: Canada as Global Village" had met with
general approval. Anna Reczynska had also been in favour. DS said he would be
writing to Anna Reczynska to agree on the wording of the announcement of the
conference, call for papers, etc.: it should appear simultaneously from PACS
and the CE Network.
iv) Graduate student
seminars.
DS reminded the SC
members that there had been a proposal to hold the 2002 seminar in Debrecen,
but the only time Peter Szaffko felt he could organize it was in conjunction
with the Debrecen conference. However, the ENCS insisted the seminar be a separate
event. Nevertheless, they are interested in holding another seminar in this
part of the world, partly to show how CS is spreading out, partly because it is
less expensive (the GKS had to put in extra money for the Berlin seminar this
year, over and above the ENCS contribution of $5000). Certainly the Brno was
much less expensive. KK suggested Szeged
as a venue, and asked what year we might be talking about. DS said that as far
as he knew nothing had been decided on for 2004. However, this issue would be
discussed at the ENCS meeting at the beginning of December. He would report
back to the SC. KK asked about the the usual dates for the seminar; DS said
that it's usually held in September or early October, a good time for both
students and teachers.
9. Lecture tours
DS this fall there was a
lecture tour of German academics, arranged originally via Dick Hoerder. Three
women professors had been to Debrecen - where else? JM: only Budapest; Szeged
couldn't be arranged. KK felt that lecture tours are very welcome, but that the
use of time could be more economic. The problem with this tour was that they
came in the middle of the week, and so lost days when lectures could have been
held.
DS brought up the
complicated nature of lecture tours; with reference to the problems last year,
he noted that they too complicated to organize from the center. In each case
they must be done by one individual, who will také responsibility for
contacting others, etc. If it receives the information, the Secretariat can
send out information on the listserve as to who may be coming, and tell people
to get in touch with the organizer. Even then, though, the problem of covering
costs remains. LM said that in Yugoslavia the ticket to get there is covered by
Canada and the rest by the local embassy. DS said that in the case of the Czech
Republic, the local embassy does cover travel costs within the country.
AR reported that PACS
contributes a little bit for internal travel, but crossing borders is a
problem; DS agreed, saying crossing borders also means long train rides and
hence inefficient use of time.
KK noted that the GKS has
a rule of lectureres visiting a minimum of three universities,
but we should be more
flexible and say two, since it is often hard to cram three universities into
one week (which ends up with the lecturers spending a lot of time travelling).
But lecture tours are very useful, and we shouldn’t stop them.
DS noted that virtually
the only lecturers who had come to Brno had been proposed by the embassy - the
difficulty of organizing other visits had simply been too great.
The conclusion to all
this was that, owing to the difficulty of arranging tours, especially ones in
more than one country, and the different conditions that exist in each country,
the Secretariat will no longer try to organize lecture tours, but will limit
its role to providing information about them by sending out announcments of
impending tours as well as queries as to whether centres want to be visited,
and by publicizing such visits.
10. CE Canadian Studies association
DS announced that, as
agreed, he was seeing to registering the association in the Czech Republic. A
lawyer is looking into it; in any case the constitution will have to be
registered in a Czech version, though the English version will be valid.
Perhaps there may be some minor changes owing to Czech legal provisions for
associations. DS was unable to say more
at the moment. He had hoped to have it ready by now but I had not proved possible.
In Ottawa in May he had got positive feedback from DFAIT considering the plan
to set up the association.
MB asked if DS had
received Irina Badescu's suggestion about the democratic election of country
representatives. DS admitted he could not remember if he had, but would look
into it. In any case, the constitution calls for country representatives to be
elected by that country's dues-paying members, so he did not see where the
problem might be. But he would check.
11. Next meeting of
Steering Committee
DS had had all sorts of
suggestions. His original idea had been Krakow, though on second thought he
felt this was not well thought out: to go there in spring of 2003 when the
conference will be there in 2004 would be perhaps inappropriate. We should try
to move around, so that we meet more Canadianists and perhaps hold one-day
mini-seminars to foster CS in the region. This would certainly be welcomed by
Ottawa, and would help deflect any criticism that the SC is an elite club.
DS suggested that we
could combine the SC meetings with some already planned event create a new one
(i.e.our own "mini-seminar"). Suggestions that had come up were
Bratislava, Poznan, Iasi. As far as dates are concerned, later than Grainau
would be better, since this would only be a little over three months after the
Debrecen meeting. Sometime in April would be good.
AR offered her Poznan
classes on Saturday as something we could combine with, but the dates in April
did not coincide with dates when DS was free.
DS then suggested that
two years ago there was a meeting of Czech and Slovak Canadianists in Olomouc,
last year in Brno, in 2003 they would like to continue with this tradition, and
perhaps do it in Slovakia. MH said she would be able to organize something in
Bratislava. DS suggested 11,12,13 April in Bratislava, with the SC arriving on
Thursday the 10th, having a mini-seminar with the Czech and Slovak Canadianists
on Friday the 11th, meeting on Saturday the 12th and leaving on Sunday the
13th. After some comments it was agreed that DS would check with the Prague
embassy to see whether this was possible; if so, then the above plan would
hold.
12. A.O.B.
i) ICCS questionnaire
DS asked if anyone
present had received the ICCS questionnaire. AR said yes - wasn't it it the International
Canadianist? DS said yes, but he for one
hadn't received the IC. Other SC members were also in the dark.
ii) Summer school in
Croatia
DS said that he had been
invited to Zagreb in March to help (re)start Canadian Studies in Croatia, and
that he had been approached later by the University of Zagreb as to the
possibility of helping in the organization of a Canadian Studies component in a
summer school the university was planning for 2004. He had answered yes, he
thought CE Canadianists could prepare and teach such a component, and would be willing to do it for no cost
providing accommodation and meals were covered (and perhaps a small per diem).
He had not heard from the university since, but wanted to know if the SC
members agreed with what he had said. The answer being yes, DS said he would
get in touch with the university again to see what was happening with the
suggestion.
13. Closing
DS thanked everyone
present for contributing to the smooth proceedings, and asked JM to convey
their thanks to Peter Szaffko and the organizing committee of the Debrecen
conference for their great help, and in particular for hosting the welcoming
dinner the night before. The meeting came to an end at 4.30.