Dear Colleagues,
Eva Lewarne writes,
"I am just curious whether you also Alan, will be receiving PRIVATE
emails from Ken telling him that you have to be a PHD Psychologist to
participate adequately in this Conference, that as an artist you have
nothing of value to add to this Conference, as I have just been told,
because I dared to mention that people need to be shown how to be
creative and think creatively. . . through knowing how to move into
the right-side of the brain. I have been teaching this for years in
my capacity as a designer and creativity coach of sorts in a research
project at a University and corporations."
Eva misrepresents my note to her.
Eva made a about brain physiology in an earlier post:
"As it turns out the RBrain is 90% of our capacity and LBrain
(Logistics) only max. 10%."
I wrote a private note challenging the claim and asking for evidence.
In my note, I questioned the notion that one hemisphere alone is
responsible for 90% of all human capacity as Eva claimed. I also
question other problems implicit in her statement. The left
hemisphere of the brain is responsible for more than logistics.
Beyond this, the connections among parts of the brain also play an
important role in activities required for holistic thinking.
In her response, Eva offered no evidence to support her claim.
Instead, she offered an argument from authority, supporting her claim
by stating that she holds an MSW in social work, that she worked for
a professor and scientist in the field, and that she had written a
report on this for the national health service of Canada.
I like to check truth claims for myself. I checked Eva's claims. I
discovered that she had done staff work for a highly respected
scientist in the field of health promotion who holds an assistant
professor post on associated status in the department of the
department of public health services at a respected medical school.
The report Eva cited is a report on mental health promotion in the
workplace.
My response to Eva's claims stated that her argument was irrelevant.
I made no claims about requiring a PhD to participate in the
conference. I stated that when she offered her MSW as proof of
research training, she was confusing a research degree with a degree
in professional practice. I agreed that her colleague is a
distinguished and highly respected scientist. I also noted that his
background is in law and criminology makes it unlikely that working
for him gives Eva the experience needed to make scientific claims on
the relative influence of the two hemispheres on ALL human capacity.
Finally, I pointed out that she did not write scientific a report on
this topic, as her note suggested, but a report on a different
subject. The subject of mental health in the workplace is important.
It is not brain physiology or cognitive science.
Eva made a scientific statement. If we were at a face-to-face
conference, I would have stopped to chat with her during a coffee
break to suggest greater care in making scientific statements.
When Eva offers scientific claims in a conference of scholars and
scientists, she should be prepared to offer evidence, and respond to
challenges without arguing - as she did with me -- that her views
threaten people. If brain physiology had been the theme of the
conference, many people on the list would have challenged her. As it
is, the theme involves design in the university.
Several participants have written me to ask for greater focus. One
suggested a moderator approach. This has not been our tradition on
this list, but I have been responding by dropping a few private notes
to individuals -to coach on format issues, to encourage the
development of arguments, to request more information, and, in
general, to do some of the behind-the-scenes work that a good session
chair is expected to do at a conference.
Because I am the convener, I wrote Eva to suggest greater focus and
care. Even if Eva's views on brain physiology were correct, they
would be irrelevant to the conference. I am hoping to keep things
focused on the conference theme. Perhaps it was a mistake to go
beyond my role as convener by attempting a dialogue on Eva's
scientific claims, but Eva's statement on the brain hemispheres was
so sweeping and ill defined that I took it up.
One virtue of a list with over 1,200 members is the opportunity to
meet new colleagues and make new friends. Private notes with queries,
requests for information, -- and even challenges! - shape new
professional and personal relationships. These build the field as
much as our on-list interactions do. Because private correspondence
leads to deeper interaction and even to collaborative projects, they
are sometimes far more durable and important than on-list interaction.
The private correspondence that has grown around this conference has
led to new acquaintances among several people, and it has deepened
interaction and friendships among others.
As I see it, that is a great virtue. With over 1,200 members, we
would be overwhelmed if every list member posted every question,
query, challenge or thought to the entire list. All good lists have a
lively back-channel life as well as a life on stage. Private
correspondence serves the same functions in an on-line group that
private conversations (and even occasional note-passing) serve in a
face-to-face conference.
Supporting the conference as convener and host requires far more
back-channel work than on-stage work. Site preparation for a
conference in cyberspace is nearly as demanding as site preparation
or a conference in physical space.
I wrote to Eva to ask that she focus on the conference theme when she
posts. At the same time, I was curious about her scientific claims.
Nevertheless, the topic of brain physiology is irrelevant to this
conference. If Eva wants to elicit a thread on this issue another
time, she is free to do so.
--
Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Leadership and Organization
Norwegian School of Management
Visiting Professor
Advanced Research Institute
Faculty of Art, Media, and Design
Staffordshire University
|
