Search

The growing number of LGBT sports clubs and tournaments questions gender and sexuality related boundaries in cities. The specific spatial patterns, at various scales, create specific sporting sites and structures: temporarily isolated territories, and strong and resilient local and international networks. These sites are identified by more or less visible and symbolic territorial markers. Some practices highlight unquestioned ordinary habits and make visible the usual norms of conventional sport. The choice of creating protective but also politically significant territories underlines the paradox of a marginalization chosen in an attempt to reach more safety, combined with an objective of openness and of political statement by denunciating the normativity of the gendered urban and sporting spaces.

A fashionable concept, resilience is now a must in both academic research and management. However, its polysemy nourishes many debates on its uses, heuristics and operational relevance. The purpose of this article is not to bring these debates to a close. Starting from a cross-disciplinary state of the art, we point out the incompatibilities between certain meanings and uses of the term. These inconsistencies raise theoretical issues, leading some researchers to reject the term for that matter, especially those outside the cindynics field. The analysis of the concept also brings out some methodological pitfalls. These are evident when attempting to translate theory into operational terms. Resilience is indeed seen as a promising response to recurrent difficulties in risk management. Nevertheless, it solves them only partially and produces new ones. Lastly, its implementation involves ethical and political risks. The injunction to resilience that seems to prevail internationally is in fact implying a number of moral and ideological assumptions which are not always clearly stated and remain serious issues.

In July 2014, the CNFG (French National Committee for Geographers) organized a two-day forum to discuss the relationship between languages, social contexts of scientific production, and the overtly admitted language of scientific exchange, that is, English. It invited all French-speaking geographers, from different "national" and "linguistic" contexts, but also all geographers and geographies interested in sharing their views and experience on the diffusion and production of knowledge in the global context. Indeed, globalization affects both the production and diffusion of scientific knowledge in all regions of the World, where English has become the de facto lingua franca of science. As it is the case in many countries, French geographers are more than ever under pressure to publish in English, and so are their scientific journals. This is often talked about as a fatality or else, as a necessity, in order to make one's work known in world geographic circles. But is there something lost in translation? More importantly, is there something lost in the production of scientific work in the social sciences within a single global language? Those questions go far beyond the simple question of the decline of French as an international language; it raises crucial interrogations such as the normalizing process of "scientific English" in the social sciences, the input of diversity in the global science, the disqualification of "local" case studies, etc. At this Forum, many countries were represented (Belgium, Canada, UK, Germany, Russia ...), which expressed a diverse International experience. The IGU President Vladimir Kolosov and Dieter Soyez of the UGI Executive Board participated. Four round tables were organized: Globalization of knowledge; Global science and the local; Knowledge dissemination; Academic Formation. The account of the Forum and the ideas and proposals that came out of it have been presented at the Congress of the IGU in Krakow in August 2014. The final report will be published in an International journal.