 |
 |
*REVITALISING CRITICAL-MANAGEMENT?* I came across a couple of things recently which rather gave me a jolt. The first was a statement on another list by someone who, referring I think to some active discussion on the other list, said something about the "good old days on the critical-management list". The second I found while browsing through the archives of this list - about a year ago when one of our (increasingly rare) discussions got going. The message said, in part and to paraphrase: "Thank goodness we've got a discussion going at last. I thought the list was just about conference announcements". These two discoveries gave shape to something I've been feeling increasing disquiet about. Has a form of life grown old? The critical management list has at times been, as Jim Carrey has almost certainly put it, "smokin'". Traffic of 60+, even 100+ messages a month was not uncommon two or three years ago. Granted, a lot of this may have been people talking past each other. There was, though, a lot of energy around. Now, it all feels a bit flat, tired and stale (and this isn't of course a criticism of the people who have been posting stuff to the list). I've been spending a bit of time looking at other lists which seem to be thriving. This is what some of them do: Publish solicited and unsolicited book/film/exhibition reviews Retrospective reviews of "classic" books/papers in the field (usually commissioned) "Editorial" essays followed by discussion* Discussions of papers etc in journals or on the web* "Ask the Professor" questions (the answers to which generally get a discussion going) "Ask the Expert/Guru/whatever" sessions (when eminent scholars/practitioners answer questions about and discuss responses to their work)* Formal debates between two or more people, followed by discussion* Active introductions of themselves and their interests by members Active dissemination and discussion of ideas generally by members *These activities are often time-bound, i.e. they are set up to last for say a week. There's sometimes someone who plays a formal discussant role. Obviously, increased traffic brings problems. If things do get busy, some people leave (although I'd like to point out the usefulness of the digest function here). Posting large files brings problems - it may cost time and money to download big messages (again, though, papers and other large files can be posted on the website for access rather than being sent to the list). The increased formalization and privileging of expertise implied by some of the above may raise people's hackles. Obviously we could let the list carry on as it is (or even close it down if no one is particularly bothered) but I'd like to think some of the ideas above represent opportunities for revitalising the list. A key issue is that these things (mostly) need *organizing*. Many of the lists which do them have steering groups or editorial committees rather than just a list "owner", with different people taking responsibility for organizing or commissioning certain activities. Even if this is inappropriate in our case, an active list does depend on members actually being motivated to send in their contributions, comments, etc. So, my questions to the list: Should we change? How and in what direction? How are such changes to be resourced or organized? Thanks for 'listening' - and apologies for my self-indulgence Charles Booth c-m list "owner" [log in to unmask] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%