Rural & Regional Development

Given its ambitious mandate, \nthe work of the Harris Centre \nnecessarily straddles the \nentire range of challenges and issues \nthat face the province. It would be \nmonumental to analyze, in a reasonable \nmanner, all of the ways in which \nthe Harris Centre has contributed to \npublic policy discourse and community \ndevelopment efforts in the province. \nThus, in an effort to provide \nmore focused discussion, the work \nof the Harris Centre was divided into \nfive broad themes, one of which was \nregional and rural development. This \nis still a very large terrain, and it has \nbeen one of the central topics of \nmany of the Harris Centre activities, \npresentations and publications. The \npurpose of this report was to discuss \nthe ways that the Harris Centre’s work \nconnected to the context and the \nchallenges of regional and rural development \nin the province over the past \n10 years. In so doing, the discussion \nmoves us toward a set of suggestions \nregarding how the future work of the \nHarris Centre in regional and rural \ndevelopment can be informed by the \nlessons of the past, and embrace the \npotential of new strategies and topics. \nWithout a doubt, regional and \nrural development has been an enduring \nthread of discussion and debate \nthroughout this province, in coffee \nshops, on wharves, and during numerous \nconsultations and public events. \nAs a thinly-populated province, with \nall of the issues that come with having \nan immense geography and an industrial \ndevelopment tradition of reliance \non large and centralized corporations, \nthere is good reason for this focus of \nconversation. When the Harris Centre \nemerged, it was logical that one of the \nprimary focus areas would be regional \nand rural development. The Regional \nWorkshops, held quarterly in different \nregions of the province, provided an \nopportunity for select individuals in \nthe regions to put specific issues on \nthe agenda. The Synergy Sessions and \nMemorial Presents events offered the \nopportunity for Memorial academics, \nas well as invited professionals and \nresearchers from outside the university \n(and the province) to discuss research \nthat related to rural and regional \nissues. This all built on the legacy \nof Leslie Harris (a former President \nof Memorial, after whom the Harris \nCentre was named shortly after its origin), \na scholar who championed theimportance of the University being \nfully engaged in the communities of \nthis province; a man who modeled the \npart of the Memorial Charter which \ninstructs the university to be “of service” \nto the people of Newfoundland \nand Labrador. \nIn terms of the structure of \nthis paper, we will begin by setting \nout the terrain of regional and rural, \nas we see it. In order to discuss the \nways in which the Harris Centre has \nintersected with the issues of regional \nand rural development, it is only fair \nto outline what we take to be some of \nthe central issues at play in rural Newfoundland \nand Labrador. Of course, \nthis list cannot be exhaustive, and \ncould raise the hackles and stoke the \nire of readers at the outset, which isn’t \na bad thing. If we can anger you early \non, there is a good chance you’ll stay \nfor the duration, if only to find more \ngrist for your letters to the editor, or \nyour MHA, or your Facebook friends. \nOn top of this, it will provide context \nto help make sense of our comments \nwhen we outline the strengths and \ngaps in the Harris Centre’s work of \nthe past. \nBut let us be very clear at the \noutset. We are looking forward to the \nHarris Centre’s next decade. We have \nboth been actively involved in Harris \nCentre events in the past, and expect \nthat to continue in the future. For the \nCentre has achieved much. Thus, any \nsuggestions or gift discernment or \ndiscussion of gaps that follow must \nbe read as constructive. If we did not \nbelieve in the potential of the Harris \nCentre, we would not have taken the \ntime to do this review. After all, reading \nover numerous reports and coalescing \nit into a paper is not among \nthe “Top 10 ways to spend a summer \nvacation...” So be reassured that we \nare offering this in the spirit of open \nand frank discussion – a spirit that has \nbeen heartily encouraged by the Harris \nCentre in its work. \nThus, we begin with our (incomplete) \nlist of some of the major \nregional and rural development issues \nin Newfoundland and Labrador. This \nwill be followed by observations of \nthe ways these issues (among others) \nhave been handled by the Harris Centre \nover the past decade. We will also \nidentify any gaps in the Harris Centre’s \ncoverage of these issues, and, \nfinally, we will pull together some \nsuggestions for the Centre’s future \nwork. In the course of these discussions, \nwe will argue for the necessity \nto also understand the social context \nof university-community relations in \nNewfoundland and Labrador. \nAll of this is, naturally, a \nsomewhat subjective reading of the \nimpressive set of materials from the \nHarris Centre. But this is not a shortcoming \nof such an analysis; rather, it \nis a strength. There are different ways \nof knowing. Some could rely on the \ncompilation of charts of numbers related \nto which themes were covered \nand how often. We did some of that, \nbut the lack of consistent language \nand categorization made such an enterprise \nof limited use. (Though, admittedly, \nit would have looked very \nnice on a Powerpoint graph!) Instead, \nwe’ve relied upon reading the material \nin light of our own experiences working \nand living in this province

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.