function in practice is periodically to bring together members of constituent countries
for conferences that, in most of the humanities and social sciences at least, suffer
from problems of communication not unlike those affecting publications.
One of the most promising contributions to a solution is to be found largely
independently of existing associations and frameworks, namely by the more or less
spontaneous development of international groups of researchers and practitioners
drawn together by recognition of the advantages of sharing ideas and findings on
problems of mutual interest. A good example is the International Seminar on Urban
Form (ISUF), which began with the coming together of 20-30 scholars, researchers
and practitioners from several disciplines and countries in a series of annual meetings
in Lausanne in the mid-1990s. Communication was almost entirely in English,
although the native language of well over one-half of those present was either French
or Italian. Critical to the momentum that the group rapidly achieved was the fact that
ideas previously confined largely to one or two language areas now permeated much
more widely. Within 3 years of the first meeting a journal, Urban Morphology had
been born that now has a circulation of about 500, spread over nearly 50 countries.
Though it is published exclusively in English, and has been included in the ISI’s
coverage since 2001, 65 per cent of the authors of articles during the first 8 years of
publication, 1997-2004, were affiliated to institutions in non-anglophone countries.
Practically all articles are submitted in English, but in comparison with Area, at least
as it was when I edited it, the editorial effort required for an average article is much
higher. The amount of effort by authors for whom English is not their first language
is also high, as it also tends to be for referees, some of whom are advising on papers
that are for them in a second language. ISUF is not problem free but it does illustrate
how a significant step forward in international communication can be made outside
the frameworks of existing organizations.
Attempts to rectify anglophone squint require efforts by both anglophones and
non-anglophones. The traffic in ideas needs to be multi-directional: there are
benefits for all, as members of ISUF are discovering. What is critical is that work of
wide significance, emanating from any part of the world, reaches the international
market place. But the functioning of that market place needs to consist of more than
each national participating group setting out its stall. The really rewarding part is