12 June 2009
Coyote 15: editorial team meeting
Minutes
Place and date: Strasbourg (Council of Europe building), 3-4 June, 2009.
Participants: Lilit Asatryan : lilit.asatryan@aywa.am
Jonathan Bowyer: jfb@viewfromhere.co.uk
Florian Cescon: florian.cescon@coe.int
Federica Demicheli: demicheli@injep.fr
Jean-Luc Frast: jlf@isca-web.org
Nadine Lyamouri-Bajja : nadine.lyamouri-bajja@coe.int: attended on 3 June.
Marta Medlinska: marta.medlinska@coe.int: attended on 4 June.
Hanjo Schild: joachim.schild@coe.int: attended on 3 June morning.
Sara Ulfhielm: sara.ulfhielm@youthforum.org
Mark Taylor: brazav@yahoo.com
Excused: Bernard Abrignani: abrignani@injep.fr: replaced by Federica.
Annette Schneider: annette.schneider@coe.int: replaced by Nadine.
_______________________
Agenda of the meeting:
The agenda below was adopted, although the items were not necessarily discussed in this order
during the meeting itself.
1. Feedback and evaluation of Coyote 14 (contents, process).
2. Discussing the future of the Coyote.
3. Theme, contents and potential contributors of Coyote 15.
4. Timeframe and task division for the preparations of Coyote 15.
a. Online platform for files-sharing.
b. Clarifying role and responsibilities within the editorial team.
c. Suggested timeline.
5. Outlook at possible themes for future Coyote issues.
_______________________
1
1/ Feedback and evaluation of Coyote 14:
General comments :
What did the editorial team like in this issue?
Very impressive issue in terms of quality. This issue of the magazine is a kind of reference
document for the field of youth participation.
It covers many dimensions of this theme: training, policy, some research.
Very well done in terms of bringing in different perspectives.
Very much liked the mind maps. It could be still improved (e.g. using symbols to identify
each article), but it is very useful.
Lay-out: nice and good to have the quotes put in bold at the beginning of the article.
The cover was much more inviting than previous ones.
What did the editorial team not like in this issue?
Some articles and contributions on other issues were maybe missing (too much focus on
participation?). Would be nice to have more space for new topics.
The magazine has become possibly even too big now: quite a huge exercice to read it from
beginning to the end.
There was a lot of institutional involvement in the last issue: it is positive, but we need to be
careful about not having this as a permanent feature of Coyote, if there is no reason for it.
This issue missed the perspective of young people who have been participating. One or more
young people could have been invited to contribute. Similarly, there could have been more
about disadvantaged youth (refugees or young people who do not have access to anything).
We need to keep this in mind for next issues.
The ANACEJ article was a very institutional presentation: wit as maybe not indispensable.
Would have been interesting to have included statistics on youth participation in different
fields (politics, NGOs, etc.).
In terms of style, interviews were missing in the last issue: very good format which one
might want to use more in the next issues.
Target group and distribution strategy for Coyote:
After an extensive discussion, the team agreed that youth leaders, youth workers, trainers,
policy-makers, researchers, experts and practioners constituted the target group of Coyote.
Young people per se are not in the target group. Coyote is really for multipliers in the field of
youth work, policy and research.
The editorial team members were provided with an update regarding the distribution strategy
for Coyote, which seemed appropriate. The distribution list of Coyote is fully updated before
each issue is being sent.
The European Youth Forum will inform the Partnership secretariat of the exact number of
issues it needs for its own purposes, before the next issue is being sent out.
2
2/ Discussing the future of the Coyote.
After a short exercise where the team members questioned their own relation to the magazine (“what
does Coyote represent for you?”, “what and how would you like to contribute to it over the next 6
months?”), the team discussed the future of Coyote, in terms of aim, format, contents and frequency.
The main results of these discussions are summarised below.
Discussion on the possibility of increasing Coyote’s frequency from 2011 onwards:
Hanjo Schild mentioned that the Youth-Partnership was currently negotiating its next Framework
Partnership Agreement (2010-2013). This would be the right moment to change the Coyote formula,
if needed. In autumn 2009, the Partnership management structures will meet and take decisions
about the Partnership publications, their aim, format, frequency. If necessary, the Partnership could
come back to the idea of issuing Coyote twice a year, in order to increase the visibility of the
Partnership. But we would need to find other ways of co-ordinating Coyote internally. The
Partnership research and policy sector could be involved, for instance. The editorial structure of
Coyote would also need to be adapted accordingly (we could for instance have different experts in
charge of co-ordinating different issues, in co-operation with the editorial board).
The team underlined that without proper resources and with the current set-up, Coyote cannot be
produced twice a year.
Having two Coyote per year might mean having two editorial teams and two editors (one team
would launch one issue, and then another team would launch another issue 6 months later, even
though all issues would still take one year to produce). The idea of having editorial teams which are
more topic-related was deemed interesting. But it will be challenging to keep the identity of Coyote
throughout all issues. An over-arching set-up for all issues would still be needed to ensure
consistency.
The editorial team also expressed its skepticism regarding outsourcing, in terms of quality. It is
important to have some continuity in terms of contents, even though we could have some guests in
the team in order to bring expertise. One needs to be careful about not loosing the identity of Coyote.
The editorial team underlined that one large part of Coyote’s identity lied in the fact that the editorial
team members encourage and coach contributors, in order to ensure consistency. The other part is
finding the people who have the knowledge, the expertise of a particular theme which we want to
deal with. If we are able to set up themes of future issues of Coyote well in advance, it would enable
members of the editorial team to invite and contact possible contributors in advance, and come up
with the editorial team with names and ideas (e.g. if we have themes for the next 3 to 4 topics).
A feasibility study would also be needed: what would an increased frequency mean in terms of
human resources, budget, etc?
Message from editorial team: the idea of having two issues per year could be interesting,
though the relevant financial and human resources should be made available. Particular
attention should also be paid to ensuring the quality and consistency of the magazine, if it is
issued more frequently. Otherwise, this would not be feasible.
3
Discussion on the overall purpose of Coyote in the next Partnership Framework Agreement
(2010-2013):
One purpose would be that Coyote contributes to the conceptual development of and discussions on
the main Partnership activities (training in youth work), but also to the pillar of youth policy
development (strong link to Agenda 2020 and the new EU communication “investing in youth and
empowering”). When looking at the topics addressed by these policy priorities, many issues could be
covered by Coyote in the future. Coyote could provide a substantial contribution to these policy
discussions. Another dimension where Coyote should play a role concerns the Partnership regional
activities: Euromed, Europe-Africa relations (one issue could be devoted to it), but also South-East
Europe, Eastern Europe and Caucasus.
The team agreed that pulling out themes from Agenda 2020 and the EU communication would be
excellent: Coyote could pick up different themes and examine them from different angles.
Suggestions regarding the organisation of a “writers seminar”:
The idea of organising a “writers and designers” seminar for Coyote, where future contributors are
invited and can work together, was also mentioned. Young designers could also be given a chance to
come up with ideas for lay-outing the magazine. It could also possible to organise such a writing
seminar as part of a big event (e.g. Mollina, etc.), in order to involve many young people in it. Such
an event would not need to be organised every year.
This idea found quite some support in the editorial team. It was suggested that the Partnership
secretariat should look into the possibility to introduce such an item in next year’s budget, if
possible.
Other ideas regarding the contents of the magazines:
The idea of having lighter contributions in the magazines (e.g. portraits, interviews of some key
people in the youth sector) was mentioned.
It would also be nice to address the readers directly, to provoke more thoughts in them. It would
make the magazine more interactive, through questions for reflection and dilemmas at the end of
some of the articles. The editorial team could come up with them when reading the article.
The question of the role of Coyote in relations to current issues or events (should it have a space for
them? Should it try to react to them?) was also discussed.
The team’s vision of Coyote in two years time (key words):
More light: - types of articles.
- lighter lay-out (pictures, etc.).
Interactivity: addressing the reader with questions.
4
Provocative regarding policy and practice. Contribute to the debate, need to have an
impact on future policy and practice. Need to be less “nice” when addressing these issues?
Readers’ corner: in order to react to previous issues and have a dialogue.
Informed by high-quality feedback: need to have an evaluation in terms of contents,
focus, etc. Should you get the feedback on the contents, or on the communication strategy?
Space for “current” issues.
Mid-term planning: anticipating themes and potential topics of future issues well in
advance; linking Coyote to upcoming events, either before – preparing the issue during the
event - or after the event.
Consistent identity of Coyote across all issues: e.g. consistent structure (focus on a
theme, but also space for other articles).
3/ Theme, contents and potential contributors of Coyote 15.
The team then proceeded with exploring and defining the theme for Coyote 15.
Exploring the theme of Coyote 15:
As for Coyote 14, the theme of Coyote 15 was not pre-defined by the Partnership management
structures. The choice of the theme therefore fully relied on the editorial team members. The criteria
used by the editorial team to choose the topic of the next issue of the magazine were recalled:
potential for a great variety of perspectives (training, research, policy) and articles in the
magazine;
no overlap with the themes of the other Partnership publications;
topic of common interest to the Council of Europe and the European Commission (common
platform);
topic relevant to young people;
attractive theme.
After an intense discussion and brainstorming on possible themes, the editorial team decided that
“social cohesion” would be the main theme of Coyote 15. This theme seemed to fulfil all the above-
described criteria.
Some specific aspects of the theme “social cohesion”, which convinced the editorial team to dedicate
the next issue of the magazine to this theme, could be mentioned in the editorial of the next issue:
This theme can be seen as a follow-up to “participation” (theme of Coyote 14), focusing on
young people who do not have access to economic and social rights allowing them to
participate.
The theme of the magazine will be in line with the “European Year against Poverty” (2010):
the link to poverty (how can youth work have an influence?) and to the current economic
crisis affecting young people could be mentioned. A short analysis of the current situation
(dealing with the crisis) should be mentioned in the editorial.
5
The theme of the magazine is also in line with the new priorities of the Council of Europe in
the youth field (Agenda 2020) and the new European Commission’s strategy on youth policy
(“Youth – investing and empowering”).
A definition of “social cohesion” could also be explored in the editorial (is it a rights-based
approach? Or is it more related to well-being of young people?). For the editorial team
members, social cohesion is about equal access to economic and social rights, but it is more
than rights: it is about living together in a diverse society.
The editorial of the next issue of the magazine should also inform readers about the future of
Coyote, our future vision, the role of Coyote, etc. (see item 2 of the current minutes).
An attractive title for this issue still needs to be found, though. Some suggested titles were: “Social
cohesion”; “Social cohesion: Europe, youth, glue”; “Social glue for young people: cohesion in
Europe?”. This will be decided at a later stage. The idea of organising a competition between team
members to find the title of the next issue was also suggested. A document where team members
could share their ideas on this can be uploaded on Google docs for that purpose.
Draft contents and potential contributors for Coyote 15:
The draft contents of the future issue were discussed at length. The decisions taken by the editorial
team are summarised in the following pages.
Each article/contribution of every section of the magazine was identified by one or several themes or
questions, which the future contributor should try to address when writing his/her piece. The final
title of the contributions will be decided at a later stage, once the articles are written. For each
article, a possible contributor was identified. Names of fall-back authors were sometimes suggested.
Each editorial team member is responsible for liaising with the contributors of several articles (see
details in tables below).
For information, the fee for all contributors who will need to be paid (i.e. who do not write the article
as part of their professional duties) is a lump sum of 220 Euros. This fee is independent from the
final length of their article (which should fit in the range from 700 to 2.500 words).
SECTION: Coyote theme
Suggested title Suggested author Main themes or Liaising editorial
questions to be team member
addressed (coordinator)
1/ Failure of youth Greet Verschelden & Failure of youth work Marta
work in addressing Filip Coussée & to address excluded
social cohesion Tineke Van de Walle young people (historic
(historic perspective). perspective). Tensions
in youth work: do we
reach the young people
who need it most in an
effective way? (based
on debates from the
“history workshop”).
6
2/ Examples of good ATD Quart Monde: 7 good practice Jonathan: co-
practices with Sara to give a name examples on how to ordinating the whole
socially challenged and liaising include socially article
youth. YMCA Young challenged youth and (Liaising editorial
offenders (Pete how to train youth team members in
Crossley): Jonathan workers and youth charge of each good
liaising leaders accordingly. practice: see 2nd
Probation service in column on the left)
the UK (Tom Croft): N.B: 1 page maximum
Jonathan liaising (500 words) for each
Armenian Young small piece;
Women’s Association contributors for these
(young unemployed short pieces will not
women doing crafts receive any fee.
together): Lilit to give
a name and liaising
LTTC access to social
rights for young people
from disadvantaged
neighbourhoods:
Nadine author, Annette
laising
Foyer Federation in the
UK: Jonathan to give a
name and liaising
Puppets: Lilit to give a
name and liaising
3/ Rights and Antonia Wulff (AC Access to economic Sara
responsabilities: chair). and social rights.
sharing Responsibility of
responsabilities and young people
role of institutions themselves towards
reaching social
cohesion (it is not only
the rest of society
which is excluding
young people).
“Shared
responsibilities” (title
of seminar organised
by DG Social
Cohesion).
Group culture vs.
social cohesion (self
exclusion: conscious
choice).
7
The role of the
institutions of
furthering the
inclusion/exclusion of
young people.
Youth autonomy.
4/ Neighbourhoods, Kaleidoscope in Disadvantaged Jean-Luc
riots and ghettos. France neighbourhoods + after
the riots +
ghettoisation.
Specific article on
disadvantaged
neighbourhoods:
depending on where
you live, you have
very different
opportunities.
Dealing with social
ruptures.
5/ Employment and Lwazi Mbowy Unemployment and Mark
unemployment: (example from South employment : how can
based on the South Africa: was in the young people find a
African example. history workshop) role and place in
society?
(e.g. in South Africa:
“one-stop shop” for
unemployed young
people: career advice,
business plan advice,
micro credit).
6/ Does Youthpass Rita Bergstein Suggested title: “Does Federica
help you to find a (or somebody else Youthpass help you to
job? suggested by Rita) find a job?”. Focus on
employability.
The article could also
underline how
Youthpass can be a
recognition tool for
young people with
fewer opportunities.
7/ The role of arts Claudio Kogon (artist The role of sports and Jean-Luc
and sport in dealing with inclusion arts, in favouring
favouring social of disadvantaged inclusion and creating
inclusion of young young people through social cohesion.
people: dialogue. arts in Israel) (dialogue between
Nicola Poro Claudio and Nicola)
(researcher in sport:
8
wrote articles and
books on sports and
social cohesion)
8/ Definitions, Helen Colley Research input (e.g. Marta
research and Fall-back authors: glossary, definitions of
statistics on social Tracy Shiltric social cohesion,
inclusion of young Tom Croft inclusion) and
people. statistics (how many
young people are
excluded in Europe?).
9/ Mobility: VYRE: Voices of Mobility : opportunity Annette
migration. Young Refugees in for more access, but
Europe (working on also forced mobility
inclusion of young (migration) or lack of
refugees through opportunities for those
participation). who would like to
migrate.
Structural/institutional
exclusion: e.g. when
you are not a legal
resident or if you do
not have citizenship of
your country of
residence : you are de
facto excluded from
many opportunities (to
participate), rights.
10/ Fighting poverty Johan Hassel Fighting poverty: local Jean-Luc
(local-international) (International Union of and international
Social Excluded perspectives (poverty
Youth) in the developing
countries, but also
poverty on your
doorstep: what is being
done about that?).
11/ EU policy : local Mayor of Södertälje in The impact of Sara
impact Sweden European policy on
local social cohesion,
including partner
countries (e.g. specific
quarters of a city
where specific
problems: Europe
brings a different
perspective). Impact of
local realities on
European policy.
9
In each article: remember to introduce reflective questions at the end.
Other articles
Suggested Title Suggested author Main themes or Liaising editorial
questions to be team member
addressed (coordinator)
12/ Co-working: Nik Paddison Based on the proposal Mark
received by the
editorial team on 2
June 2009
13/ New means of One interview or good New means of Federica
communication in practice example (keep communication: do
youth work: one good it short and simple). they favour social
practice example. Person/organisation cohesion (creating a
still to be chosen. feeling of virtual social
community) or do they
increase exclusion?
(digital divide). Access
and peer pressure. Is
there something there
about personal
identities and social
cohesion? (feeling of
belonging? To what?).
14/ Coyote spirit: Maria Gajic Shortly after his death, Federica
Profile of Augusto Fall-back authors: describe the profile of
Boel: influence on Laura de Witte, Augusto Boel and,
youth work. Luis Pinto above all, the way it
influenced and
inspired youth work
through the theatre of
the oppressed.
15/ Child protection Jo Clayes Description of new
training tools: training tools designed Jonathan
after a training course
on child protection.
16/ Marker. Mark Taylor To be decided. Mark
17/ Spiffy comic strip. Mark Taylor To be decided. Mark
In order to limit the overall number of pages of the next Coyote issue, the editorial team members
agreed that all articles should be 3 pages maximum. If some articles are too long, coordinators
should refuse them even before uploading them onto the platform.
10
Decisions regarding proposed articles
Three articles had been proposed to the editorial team before its meeting. The decisions taken by the
team regarding the publication or not of these articles in Coyote are summarised below.
Author Title Decision of the team Liaising
Barbara Bello “Intersectionality: an Not accepted, because Florian will inform her
approach to empower not linked to current
women” topic
Kamila Czerwinska Article/teaser on Not accepted this Marta will inform her
“European Year of time, because not
Volunteering 2011” linked to current topic.
(institutional But an article on this
presentation) topic might be
included in the
following issue of
Coyote (number 16),
which will be
distributed in 2011
Nik Paddison Article on “co- Accepted (see article Mark will inform him
working” number 12 in the list and will liaise with
above) him to finalise the
article
4/ Timeframe and task division for the preparations of Coyote 15.
a. Online platform for files-sharing (through “Google docs”).
After a short discussion and presentation of this collaborative website, the editorial team decided to
use “Google docs” in order to prepare the next issue of Coyote. This should hopefully allow all
team members to share draft articles and to comment on them more easily.
Instead of sending draft articles and comments by e-mail to the whole team (which generated a great
amount of e-mails and sometimes created confusion regarding the status of the versions being sent,
in the past), each team member would upload the draft articles onto Google docs, check the articles
online and also comment them online.
With the use of Google docs, the revised workflow would be as follows:
1. Each co-ordinator invites authors to write (by e-mail).
st
2. The co-ordinator uploads the 1 draft article (version 1) on Google docs, shares version 1
with all editorial team members and gives a deadline to comment.
3. The team makes comments online (directly on Google docs).
11
4. Each co-ordinator summarises all comments and sends them to the author (by e-mail).
5. Each co-ordinator uploads the revised article (version 2) on Google docs, shares it with all
editorial team members and gives deadline for final comments (no obligation to comment).
6. The editor edits all articles, creates a version for proofing (version 3), which he uploads on
Google docs and shares with all editorial team members.
N.B: Each coordinator needs to choose a specific colour to make comments directly in the
documents uploaded on Google docs and also to write his/her name at the end of the comment. Each
coordinator then keeps his/her colour across all articles.
Rule: never delete any document from Google docs.
b. Clarifying role and responsibilities within the editorial team.
The main role and responsibilities of the editorial team members were recalled:
finding an author.
briefing him/her on what is expected (use updated briefing notes which were forwarded by
Florian on 4 June), encouraging them to have a look at former Coyote articles.
informing the editor and the Partnership secretariat as soon as a potential contributor has agreed
to write an article, in order to facilitate the administrative follow-up. Once the names of
contributors are confirmed, all administrative contacts with contributors (sending and collecting
contributors forms, collecting data and bank details from contributors for contractual letters, etc.)
will be dealt with directly by the Lucie Missemer in the Partnership secretariat. Lucie will also
collect the identity pictures of each author.
uploading the first draft (version 1) on Google docs and share it with other ed team members.
collecting feedback comments from editorial team (online), sending them back to the contributor
(by e-mail).
if no feedback is received at all: send a reminder/SOS to editorial team members.
uploading the revised draft (version 2) on Google docs and share it with other ed team members.
making sure that contributors respect deadlines (for first and second versions).
in case there is a problem: final decisions if an article gets in or not is taken by Jonathan and
Florian. Jonathan informs the liaising editorial team member and then informs the author (in co-
ordination with the laising editorial team member).
And of course:
reading other articles that come and providing feedback on them.
The editorial team members were encouraged to communicate mainly through “Google docs”. If this
system does not work, e-mail communications will be used.
The responsibility for the quality of the final article lies with the liaising ed team member and the
editor. Moreover, it is extremely important to respect the deadlines given for providing feedback. If
one or more ed team members do not provide their feedback on time, this will mean that they accept
the draft contribution as such and have no further comments.
12
c. Suggested timeline.
The team agreed on the following timeline in order to prepare the next issue of the magazine.
Action Deadline
All coordinators invite potential authors (by e-mail). As soon as possible
All coordinators confirm who will write (by e-mail) 1 July 2009
Table with status of each article/contributor to be updated on the
platform (Jonathan to provide empty table online; all editorial team
members should remember to include e-mail addresses of authors in
table!)
All coordinators upload drafts (version 1) on the platform and make 1 September 2009
sure to SHARE it with other editorial team members
Deadline for editorial team members to make comments on drafts 22 September 2009
(version 1) on the platform
Coordinators summarise comments and send them back to authors 26 September 2009
(by e-mail)
All new drafts to be ready by 26 October 2009 at the latest
All coordinator upload new drafts (version 2) on the platform 26 October 2009
Deadline for final comments on drafts (version 2) to be put on the 3 November 2009
platform (no obligation)
After 3 November: Jonathan editing articles (preparing the versions
for proofing)
Proofing: Final drafts sent by Jonathan to Mark for proofing (to be 10 November 2009
finished by 27 November)
Layout: Jonathan sends final document (word file and pictures) and 1 December 2009
briefing to Big Family to Florian
Florian sends everything to Big Family and liaises with them (Big
Family asked to provide first layouted version by 15 December; Final
layouted version from Big Family: 14 January)
To print 15 January 2010
Publication/Distribution From 1 February
2010 onwards
We need to put pressure on getting illustrations from authors: all coordinators are requested to
include them in the Word document (draft articles – version 1), and to upload them on Google docs.
The editorial team decided that all author should use the Harvard reference system in their articles.
This reference system was included in the briefing notes for contributors, which were updated by
Florian and sent to all editorial team members on 4 June.
5/ Outlook at possible themes for future Coyote issues (16, 17).
If Coyote goes out twice a year from 2011 onwards, the editorial team suggested that the topics of
the following issues could be “volunteering” for Coyote number 16 (spring 2011) and
“sustainable development” for Coyote number 17 (autumn 2011).
13
The topic “volunteering” (spring 2011) could be linked to the following events:
Autumn 2010: big event on youth work (Belgian presidency of the EU).
December 2010: conference on volunteering in MEDA countries: resources used for the
preparation of the conference could be used for drafting Coyote.
Link with the European Year of Volunteering.
The topic “sustainable development” was deemed relevant for the following reasons:
It is a new priority of both partner institutions.
Link with environmental awareness.
Not explored enough in the training field, even though it is going to get more and more attention.
If the Partnership carries on issuing Coyote only once a year, Coyote 16 should then be focusing on
“sustainable development”. One article of that issue could still focus on volunteering.
The editorial team also agreed on a general list of other possible themes for future Coyote issues:
Gender equality.
Training NOW! Overview What is training these days? (in link with TALE: training
standards, competences profile). But the topic of training as such was deemed to wide: it
should be more focused.
Sustainability of youth organisations.
Mobility: Was the “favourite” theme for Coyote 15, according to the previous editorial team
meeting in 2008. Sub-themes: youth exchanges, migration.
Recognition of Non Formal Education: Youthpass developments. Need to address the issue
strategically.
Identity.
Draft minutes: Florian Cescon, 8 June 2009.
Final minutes (integrating comments from team members): 12 June 2008.
14