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
|