Hi, Dick.
Thanks for alerting me to a possible misunderstanding. I'm not
concerned with elite meetings. My concern is creating a good space
for engaged dialogue. In this context, it seemed worth making clear
that the Gordon Research Conferences seek both cutting edge research
and an elite position. This is why people are so eager to attend and
it is why they find it easy to secure funding despite the prohibition
against publishing. The specific charter and features of the Gordon
Research Conference system and the rich culture these meetings have
developed over the past 75 years give them the tone that make such an
impression on those who participate.
What could be equally interesting would be to find some way to
generate extended and reflective conversations using other methods.
To some degree, Scandinavian universities do this with NoRFA research
seminars comprised of scholars and students among the different
Nordic nations. Because these are fully funded by the Nordic Council
of Ministers, there is usually no need to ask one's school for funds.
As a result, there is generally no need to publish anything, though
some NoRFA seminars may seek to publish a document if it meets their
needs and interests.
The forthcoming conference at Denmark's Design School will not pursue
an elite strategy. We are being selective to achieve broad
participation with many different points of view while remaining
small enough to do everything as one group. We issued some
invitations, and we also called for proposals. We selected among
proposals to achieve a broad spectrum of positions on the conference
theme as well as a rich variety of participants. We sought
participants from several fields, and we sought a range of
participants to include doctoral candidates, post-docs, mid-career
scholars and senior scholars, as well as reflective practitioners and
a few curators and critics who also focus on the conference topic. In
developing our invitation list, we asked people who they thought we
ought to ask to represent the most exciting work in the field. I
guess you could say that's an appropriate adaptation of the Delphi
method to the task at hand. A larger call yielded additional
surprises, including people we did not know from nearby and distant
fields.
We did something similar when we hosted a conference of the Center
for Philosophy and Design. After two meetings at Staffordshire, we
hosted a third at Denmark's Design School. The focus was
conversation. We considered a publication, but we did not finally go
that route. What's important is that we were able to host the entire
event. Once participants got to the conference center, we covered all
expenses. Again, this created a great deal of freedom -- and, there
too, we asked earlier participants whom else we ought to invite. They
gave suggestions based on interesting ideas and quality of work, not
on publications or status.
Since you didn't suggest using the Delphi method for forecasting, an
historical note would be irrelevant. The Gordon history was relevant.
This list has more than 1,200 subscribers from more than 40 nations,
and people from some parts of the world don't know about things that
others among us take for granted. Sometimes a little background
helps. I wouldn't have written an historical note on a topic you
didn't raise. Unless, of course, you predicted a post on the history
of the Delphi method just to "beard" me.
Nevertheless, I note that Delphi methods customarily sample selected
experts. This means that most Delphi systems are to some degree
elite. In stating this, I am not advocating an elite system. I do,
however, note that most of the methods you suggest as a way to ensure
broad participation and diverse views seek those among identified
elite groups or by selection.
The way to sample the full field would be random selection. Even
after a sharp tug on the beard, I'm not sure that's what you intend.
There is another challenge to overcome here as well. The open quality
and tone of the Gordon Research Conferences is in part an outcome of
the strict rule that EVERYTHING is off the record. It's not simply
that they don't allow publications. They prohibit any reference to
the Gordon Research Conferences in any scientific publication on a
topic that an author may have discussed at one of their conferences.
They also prohibit ANY kind of photographic or sound recording and
any kind of reporting, documentation, or capture of ideas.
The challenge of exploring these different kinds of proposals is to
find new ways to develop a deep, productive, and sustained
conversation in a way that allows all of us to participate.
Best wishes,
Ken
>Folks,
>
>I liked Clive's point a lot. We need ingenuity in crafting some new
>formats--both in individual meetings and perhaps in a series of related
>meetings held around the world.
>
>The goal would be new discussion of important themes or issues as well as
>broad participation. Ken seems to be more concerned about elite meetings,
>but I prefer broad participation with lots of different points of view on
>focused issues.
>
>I wonder if there could be something Delphic in the method? (I'm waiting
>now for Ken to post on the history and nature of the Delphic method in
>business and its uses there for predicting future trends. Not an approach
>that I am advocating in this form.) We need some ingenuity here.
>
>I wonder if a series of conversations around the world in regions--with some
>form of reporting and capture of ideas--would be possible?
>
>Depth conversations and Delphic or Socratic diversity may be a distinctive
>approach for our field that would surprise folks in other disciplines.
>
>Dick
|