Folks,

I agree very much with Chris' observations on the value of the biennial DRS
conference.  It really is an important event for the field.  The range of
work is surprising, the range of approaches and perspectives is exciting,
and the people are highly motivated.

I also like the idea of finding ways in the biennial conference for general
conversation on basic themes that are central to the emerging field.  There
is room for this.

Richard


On 11/17/06 2:09 AM, "Chris Rust" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I'm pleased to see this discussion moving in helpful ways. As Ken says
> we probably have room for different kinds of events and maybe more
> workshops and conversations alongside our big set piece conference.
> 
> My view of the Biennial conference is that it performs several very
> important functions:
> 
> 1. Social - as well as making new friends and opportunities to
> collaborate it is a chance to better understand people in the field and
> "place" yourself (understanding how you fit in to the bigger picture and
> also influencing how others fit you into their picture). A good
> conference must provide the environment for this, Wonderground did
> pretty well.
> 
> 2. Publishing - regardless of the standing of the conference it is an
> opportunity to get your work into the public domain so you can point
> others to it and it becomes a matter of record. Traditionally,
> conference proceedings have not been ideal because they tend to be
> limited circulation but as we move to online publication they actually
> become one of the better ways to ensure that your work is accessible
> since they are not restricted to those libraries with subscriptions.  We
> are a bit late with this but the Wonderground team are committed to
> ensuring that we publish a complete set of conference papers and our
> intention is that they should be openly accessible via the web (although
> initially they might be distributed direct to delegates)
> 
> 3. Validation of your work - frankly that should not be the prime reason
> for publishing in a conference but it is important for a lot of people
> as Ken has pointed out. I don't think we have this right yet but we will
> continue to work on it. That may mean that future DRS conferences are a
> little more exclusive.
> 
> 4. A survey of the field - One of the values of large generic
> conferences, for me, are that they provide a good oversight of what is
> going on in a field of research. For that reason I don't really like
> strong conference themes for these events as they may turn away people
> who are doing interesting new work that has not yet shown up on the
> radar. There is certainly a place in a conference for specialist tracks
> and workshops, but we should not let special interests outweigh the
> opportunity for the whole community to take part.
> 
> 5. Personal development - conferences are helpful to all of us in
> polishing our skills as researchers and communicators. Most people who I
> saw presenting in the parallel sessions received some useful feedback
> and despite Clive Dilnot's complaint I saw some very good debate in the
> generous time allowed (30% of session time was for discussion). The
> plenaries were less good for this aspect and we must learn from that. I
> hope most people went away a little more confident about their own work,
> or at least knowing better how to improve it.
> 
> best regards
> Chris
> (with my chair of DRS Council hat on)
> 
> 
> ********************
> Professor Chris Rust
> Head of Art and Design Research Centre
> Sheffield Hallam University, UK
> +44 114 225 2686
> [log in to unmask]
> www.chrisrust.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ken Friedman wrote:
>> Dear Dick,
>> 
>> The Gordon Research Conferences provide an interesting and important
>> model. We can certainly adapt some features of this model in
>> conferences -- this, for example, is what we did at La Clusaz with a
>> single track and extensive time for conversation, along with a feature
>> that the Gordon conferences purposely avoid: tracking the conversation.
>> 
>> There are two aspects of the Gordon Research Conference model that may
>> cause some discomfort in our field.
>> 
>> The first of these is that the Gordon Research Conferences are
>> deliberately elite conferences. They don't involve publishing because
>> they invite scholars who have a strong publishing record or
>> distinguished research potential The idea of the conference involves
>> egalitarian networking among a group that the conference chair of any
>> given conference identifies as a member of the elite or the potential
>> elite.
>> 
>> The second problem is related to a distinct virtue -- but it remains a
>> problem for many. The fact that there are no conference publications
>> and the fact that publications flowing from the conference network are
>> enjoined not to mention the conference would make participation
>> impossible for those whose national or university policies require
>> publication to secure funding. There are similar elite conferences in
>> other fields where the elite reputation of the conference and the
>> prestige of an invitation is so great that schools are happy to send
>> participants even though there is no published record. Nevertheless,
>> in most schools, the decision of the department head is required for
>> funding approval and some schools (or nations) allow no exceptions to
>> policies. As a professor at a class one research university, attending
>> a Gordon Research Conference would have been no problem for you. This
>> model would not work for anyone who requires a proceedings publication
>> as a condition of funding.
>> 
>> I have mixed feelings about the entire conference business. As I said
>> at the session on conferences, it may well be that the current DRS
>> peer-reviewed paper policy needs rethinking. It's clear that across
>> most fields, nearly no conference papers and relatively few journal
>> papers are actually used or cited. This suggests the model may be
>> wearing thin in many fields. (David Durling and I take delight in the
>> frequent citation of papers from the La Clusaz proceedings. David
>> managed the review process for La Clusaz, so there may be something to
>> be said for David's version of peer review.)
>> 
>> In terms of your earlier note -- and Chris Nippert-Eng's -- I want to
>> add that I prefer conversation to "reading" a paper. While I always
>> try to deliver a full manuscript, I never read it. I write it out, and
>> then I build a talk around the key ideas in the written paper.
>> Sometimes I use a mind map. Sometimes I even use the ancient
>> rhetorical device of a memory theater.
>> 
>> While I have until recently avoided PowwerPoint, in recent years I
>> have come to realize that large key words and carefully selected text
>> excerpts (LARGE!) are a major help to people whose native languages
>> are different to my own. The first time I saw Kun-Pyo Lee present with
>> PowerPoint, I understood that PowerPoint could illuminate a
>> presentation. I still have not attained Kun-Pyo's level of visual
>> mastery, but I have added big words to my spoken repertoire. This
>> restricts my rhetorical development, to be sure, but I have learned in
>> Brazil, Taiwan, and elsewhere that those who speak other languages
>> find the visual cues a great help.
>> 
>> On the main point -- conversational conferences -- there must surely
>> be a way that we can add this to our conference repertoire while
>> meeting the needs of those who are constrained by governmental or
>> local policy.
>> 
>> Ken Friedman
>> 
>> 
>