Dear All,
Fil's got an idea that should prove workable. There are several good
ideas coming round in this thread. Fil suggests a way that might
allow us to balance different needs even within the format of what
Chris calls the "big set piece" conference.
Klaus is right in noting that the Gordon Research Conferences seek to
present a forum for cutting edge research. In their terms, however,
this is an explicitly elite activity. It's for the select few who
actually can advance the field, and the mission statement of the
Gordon Research Conferences states that each conference "strives to
be the overall best meeting in its field," the elite venue. There may
be some purpose served in organizing this kind of conference, with
conference organizers deciding what constitute cutting edge research
just as the chairs of each Gordon Research Conference do.
I can suggest additional thoughts.
One is to prohibit "reading" papers, even when written papers are
published in a proceedings. Presentation, even visual aids may be
welcome, but reading the paper from a manuscript may not be allowed.
Another is suitable for small, highly selective conferences. We are
doing a conference at Denmark's Design School at the end of May with
just under one hundred participants. Everyone will deliver paper
manuscripts in December to appear in a proceedings that will be
distributed to all participants in January. Participants will read
what interests them in the proceedings as they prepare for the event.
No one will read a paper. Participants will present ideas and discuss
themes. Following the conference, all participants will have an
opportunity to revise and polish their papers in response to the
conference experience and any comments or thoughts they've had from
other participants. These will become chapters in a post-conference
book.
There are probably several other formats we can try. It seems to me
that we have real openings here, especially where our efforts involve
small conferences and workshops.
We can also make far richer use of the Internet. So far, DRS lists
have hosted two on-line conferences, one unplanned conference on
"Picasso' PhD" before La Clusaz in 2000 on the DRS list, and a formal
on-line conference titled "Design in the University" in 2003 on the
PhD-Design list. This led to a careful study of what worked well and
what didn't. The result was a carefully planned format and a
successful on-line conference that also used the JISCMAIL system this
past summer as part of the AHRC Review on Practice-Led Research at
Sheffield-Hallam University.
Some time back, Eduardo suggested that we develop several different
kinds of conferences, each with its own format. Perhaps this is the
time.
Best wishes on a crisp autumn day by the Vrengesund.
Ken Friedman
Fil Salustri wrote:
I agree with Klaus on this. Diversity in conference styles is good.
Here's a variation: "some" conferences could start with a
'conventional' stage during which papers are presented and panels do
their thing. Following that, tho, there could be a gordonesque
element, at which participants, having heard each other give
presentations and (presumably) being more aware of the perspectives
of others, will "advance the field".
--
Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
i agree with ken, that the model of the gordon conferences is not for everyone.
i participated in three. i would not consider them elite
conferences, however. the idea is to enable scholars at the cutting
edge of their field to converse about topics under development, not
yet ready for publication. this has the advantage of allowing people
to be more free to share their ideas even about theories that may not
work out in the future.
i think we should have some gordon-like conferences. publications are
usually for younger scholars that have to develop their publication
records for promotions etc. or for older scholars who have something
to say to the world. gordon-style conferences are to advance the field
--
Dick Buchanan wrote:
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.
--
Chris Rust 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.
--
Ken Friedman
Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Institute for Communication, Culture, and Language
Norwegian School of Management
Oslo
Center for Design Research
Denmark's Design School
Copenhagen
+47 46.41.06.76 Tlf NSM
+47 33.40.10.95 Tlf Privat
email: [log in to unmask]
|
